10,000 Hours

[Clint Schlosser]

Being new to woodworking I was wondering if people could post their estimated amount of time they have spent in the pursuit of woodworking. I am asking because I am reading a very interesting book called "Outliers" by Malcom Gladwell. In the book it asserts that 10,000 hours is what is necessary to consider someone an expert at a subject. I wont bore everyone with the details but the more I think about it the more it makes sense.

[Jim Rimmer]

Wow, tough question. Do you include study time, design time, shop maintenance time? Or just actual time making sawdust? What about time spent on SMC? :confused:

[dan grant]

i dont think 10,000 hrs will make you an expert but it should give you a good understanding of what is going on in a particular trade, to become an expert i think takes more then just hours, i think it has to come from a want or thirst, 10,000 hrs (approximate) is a journeyman ticket in most trades have a good one dan

[David DeCristoforo]

That's only five years of eight hours a day five days a week. Not too much of a stretch...

[Rob Wright]

That is a wonderfull book! I know that I have spent much less than 10,000 hrs and I am much less than a master:)

[Tom Schmidt]

That's only five years of eight hours a day five days a week. Not too much of a stretch...

I have to disagree. Picture a six year old boy playing golf 8 hours a day for five days a week for five years. Bingo, you have Tiger Woods.

Picture a kid playing hockey for 40 hours a week for five years. Bingo, Wayne Gretzky.

Picture a person programming a computer 8 hours a day every day for five years. Bingo, say hello to Bill Gates.

I think it's totally reasonable to become an expert at something after 10,000 of total devotion to something.

[David DeCristoforo]

"I have to disagree. Picture a six year old boy playing golf 8 hours a day for five days a week for five years. Bingo, you have Tiger Woods...etc"

That was my point. Or at least I thought it was! No disagreement there....

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Tom,

Tiger didn't become Tiger in 5 years. He started playing before the age of 5 and in fact, was on Johnny Carson at about that age. He dropped out of college to compete professionally. So he'd probably been at it closer to 15 years.

Everyone has a different learning curve. Some folks because of a lack of talent and an inability to learn will never be experts. DAMHIKT

I would suggest to become an expert would take more than 10,000 hours. I know a lot of craftsmen and craftswomen that have been at it longer than that and they don't consider themselves experts.

I don't think 5 years is enough time to become a real "expert". JMHO.

[Mike Henderson]

For many things, 10,000 hours is just a beginning. Think of the time spent in school learning some subject. Even if you only count college time, that's a lot of hours. Then you begin working and five years (10,000 hours) will make you a journeyman in many fields (such as engineering). But far from an expert.

In medicine, you'd just be beginning at 10,000 hours (four years college, medical school, internship, resident, and maybe a fellowship). And when you complete all that, you're viewed as a beginning doctor, with a lot to learn.

And if you just do one thing over and over, you will be an expert, but a very narrow one.

Mike

[Brian Kent]

I heard a tourist ask a San Diego painter how long it took him to paint a picture. His answer was "40 years so far".

The OP also got me to thinking what an expert is. If it is someone who knows his or her way around and can show others, then sure.

My definition of "talent" is when you put in your time (say 10,000 hours) and it pays off.

[Tom Schmidt]

That was my point. Or at least I thought it was! No disagreement there....[/QUOTE]

I realize I totally missed your point. My apologies for being a dufus (doofus?).

[John Loftis]

Interesting question. There's a 'breadth vs. depth' piece that others have alluded to. Woodworking is such a broad field. I'd guess there are a bunch of folks on SMC who've put in 30,000+ hours but never mastered one of the major disciplines like carving or turning or inlay.

Maybe it's the kind of field that keeps you humble, but I have a hard time believing that anyone would claim to be a true expert in woodworking, with all its nooks and crannies.

Another thought. I've spent thousands of hours hitting golf balls. But I'm a pretty lousy golfer. A teacher once told me, "Practice doesn't make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect." Swinging badly for 10 hours straight won't advance my expertise at all. That probably applies to woodworking too.

John

[Steve Rozmiarek]

It may take 10,000 hours to become an expert, but it takes talant to get to the next level.

[Myk Rian]

I spent 8,000 hrs. for my apprenticeship in a trade. Still didn't know it all after 35 years.
Now that I've been retired 5 years, I'm starting all over, and don't expect to ever know it all.
Some people can have all the training in the world, but that doesn't mean they're going to be any good at it.

[John Keeton]

It may take 10,000 hours to become an expert, but it takes talant to get to the next level.Steve makes and important point, and while I agree with the premise in the book, it seems one must distinguish between natural born talent and the knowledge and "honed" skills one acquires through apprenticeship.

I think artists are born. They have a natural, inate ability to create. We often see that in an extreme form with a child prodigy. But, it occurs in degrees. There are many here on SMC that just seem to create masterpieces from whatever they touch. Some of those have not been at this endeavor all that long. Others of us have been doing this for many years, and do not reach that pinnacle. Something separates those groups, and it is talent.

I see that as different from one who acquires a skill from hours of training and doing. I don't play golf, but I would presume that Tiger Woods was born with some very specific athletic skills that would have given him a leap on nearly any athletic endeavor - he (or his Dad) chose golf. He was born with talent, and acquired the knowledge and skill through putting in the time.

[Mitchell Andrus]

That's only five years of eight hours a day five days a week. Not too much of a stretch...

I'm with Dave. I think that's about right. Five years would cover just about any 'trade' occupation.

If you aren't capable of self-starter status in five years, time to find another vocation.
.

[Anthony Whitesell]

Wow, tough question. Do you include study time, design time, shop maintenance time? Or just actual time making sawdust? What about time spent on SMC? :confused:

I don't know about the 10,000 hours. In a normal 8 hour 5 day 50 week job that would be 5 years. But I would definately include time spent on SMC asking questions and reading posts. I think I have learned a third to half of what I know by spending time on here rather than trial-and-error in the shop. There is an amazing amount of knowledge, experience, and information available through this forum.

Thank you.

[Tim Self]

I'm with Dave. I think that's about right. Five years would cover just about any 'trade' occupation.

If you aren't capable of self-starter status in five years, time to find another vocation.
.

I don't think it's a "self-starter" thing here. I was a mechanic over 20 yrs. I may be classified as a "master mechanic" but I still didn't know it all. When you have an industry that changes from yr to yr it's almost impossible. Woodworking may have a different learning curve, but as stated that achieving the next level is the goal.

[Phil Clark]

I'm with John, 10,000 hours of moving around any and all spects of woodworking with power tools is not going to make you an expert. However, 10,000 hours of using only hand tools will go a long way towards making you a fine craftsman. When you look at the careers of folks like Maloof and Boggs their focus was fairly narrow. I also believe the 10,000 hours has to be coupled with a constant desire to do better.

[Dan Gill]

I have to disagree. Picture a six year old boy playing golf 8 hours a day for five days a week for five years. Bingo, you have Tiger Woods.

Picture a kid playing hockey for 40 hours a week for five years. Bingo, Wayne Gretzky.

Picture a person programming a computer 8 hours a day every day for five years. Bingo, say hello to Bill Gates.

I think it's totally reasonable to become an expert at something after 10,000 of total devotion to something.

Only if you're Tiger Woods, Wayne Gretzky, or Bill Gates. There is this thing called natural ability. We all have differing amounts of it in different spheres. Willie Shoemaker was an excellent jockey. He would not have made it in the NBA no matter how long and hard he practiced. Just as Shaq could never be a jockey. (The horses would all run away!)

On that note, didn't you always used to feel sorry for Hoss Cartwright's horse? "Noooo, I couldn' get Little Joe or Pa. I have to carry this monster! Ooof!"

[Matt Day]

Whether SMC time would count toward being an expert is an interesting point.

For example, I do a lot of cycling, and there are numerous cycling forums where gearheads talk about all types of equipment and bikes and riders to no end. There are people on there that have literally 10's of thousands of posts and spend most of their waking hours on internet forums, and I bet some of them need training wheels to ride. Would you consider that an expert cyclist?

Would you consider someone an expert woodworker if they can't use a chisel?

Just a discussion point...

[Scott Holmes]

"Practice doesn't make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect."

First stated by none other than Arnold Palmer.

[george wilson]

I trained about 15 people during my 39 years in Williamsburg. Standard apprenticeship was 7 years. Work year was 2080 hours.

The question cannot be answered. It depends entirely upon the natural inclinations of the trainee. There are plenty of so called master craftsmen I know who cannot sharpen their own saws,or who make a horrible mess when they try.

Some of them should not have been promoted,and are really more supervisors than masters. On the other hand,Jon,my journeyman,should have been made master gunsmith by all possible measures. Because of the huge ego of someone else,another person was made master. Jon was there 39 years,too. He can make a hand forged rifle barrel,and hand bore and hand rifle it. Very few can. His work is great. A lot of crap went on in the museum.

Anyway,it's like every other aspect of life: Some learn to do well,and others can work forever and are total klutzes.

I preferred to train my students from scratch to avoid getting someone who knew a little,but thought he knew it all. Marcus Hansen and Ed Wright were trained from zero woodworking skills. You might have seen them on "The Woodwright's Shop".

[sean m. titmas]

The OP also got me to thinking what an expert is. If it is someone who knows his or her way around and can show others, then sure.

My definition of "talent" is when you put in your time (say 10,000 hours) and it pays off.


being able to teach someone a trade or skill is a good indicator of how much you understand the concept of woodworking. by taking a complete newbie and progressing them through to an accomplished artist who can turn out beautifully detailed pieces is a true test of the knowledge, wisdom and skill of a carpenter.

While putting in the time is part of the equation it is not necessarily a guarantee of becoming an expert, first you have to have the insight to recognize the opportunity and than the hunger to take advantage of whatever you come across. Ive seen many of opportunity's wasted on people who have no interest or desire to be in the industry and ive also seen people who have more talent in one single finger joint than most folks will ever have but sadly have never been given the opportunity or forum to express that talent and miss out on a lifetime of enjoyment.

Weather or not people are born an artist or not is debatable but i seriously believe that we have the inborn tendencies within ourselves that predisposes us towards a certain skill or activity. It may not be initially apparent and may take some effort to discover it but its there and waiting to be turned loose. Personally, i have always been interested in and have a deep internal understanding for building things. be it complete houses or just a simple cabinet within that house, i have always been able see the final product in my thoughts and understand what’s needed to reveal that piece. The more I work at it the more I see the potential for personal expression.

Im still waiting for “it” to pay off, and im not sure if it ever will but regardless, im receiving so much satisfaction from doing what I do that I could never think about abandoning it for the shiny temptation of a different career.

[george wilson]

Scientists have discovered that a newborn baby has many more small nerves in his brain than an adult who never made anything. It is now thought that if those nerve connections are exercised,they stay. If the person becomes,say,a salesman,and does not use them,they go away.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

I would argue that taking someone from novice to artist is more a test of one's teaching skills.

I know a lot of talented, skilled, knowledgeable people in my profession but you can't learn a thing by working with them. They are not teachers and further can't express themselves well.

Teaching is in itself a skill...inherent or learned.

[george wilson]

I agree with that,too,Ken.

[David DeCristoforo]

Look at someone like Frank Pollaro:

http://www.pollaro.com/main.php

who was building Ruhlman style pieces when he was seventeen! or someone like Joe Satriani who was considered one of the best "rock" guitarists ever at the same age. As mentioned, talent and "natural ability" can outweigh time by orders of magnitude.

[Russell Tribby]

One of my favorite Harry Truman quotes (I can't remember the exact wording) is "An expert is a fellow who's afraid to learn something new." I think that applies to a lot of ventures, not just woodworking.

[Jason White]

I've spent about that amount "reading" about woodworking on the web and in magazines. ;)


Being new to woodworking I was wondering if people could post their estimated amount of time they have spent in the pursuit of woodworking. I am asking because I am reading a very interesting book called "Outliers" by Malcom Gladwell. In the book it asserts that 10,000 hours is what is necessary to consider someone an expert at a subject. I wont bore everyone with the details but the more I think about it the more it makes sense.

[Alan Schwabacher]

Gladwell's point was that if you look at the people apparently uniquely capable at what they do, like Bill Gates, Mozart, Tiger Woods, or the Beatles, that there are a few things they all have in common when they hit the top, and one of these is that they have all put in 10,000 hours learning and honing their craft. His contention is that no matter how talented you are, you need that 10,000 hours to reach that peak. And all these people had other helpful circumstances besides their undisputed exceptional talent that helped them outdistance their competition. It is an interesting book.

[Sean Nagle]

Interesting question.

As I got into serious hobbyist woodworking I realized over time that I needed to be proficient at so many things, not just mastering the various machines and handtools. I needed to be able to setup, tune and service all my machines. I needed to be able to sharpen all my handtool cutting adges and tune those as well. I needed to build all types of fixtures and jigs to enable quality and consistent work in the shop. I also had to understand wood including the varieties, its structure and reaction to its environment. I even had to learn about the chemistry of finishes and solvents in how they work best for what applications.

These skills are just a start since I also had to pursue design, engineering and history of furniture and cabinetry. I havn't done any carving or inlay work yet and have only done a small amount of turning.

I consider my self a proficient woodworker, but I am humbled by much of the work that many post here on SMC. I've always felt that the day I can build a Queen Anne Bonnet-Top Highboy without obvious flaws, I will have mastered this craft.

[Jim Rimmer]

I agree with most of the comments here about innate talent and hours spent learning. One additonal thought is that time alone doesn't make you better. You could have 1 year of experience and 20 years on the job. If you don't challenge yourself or learn from your errors you are just repeating steps, not gaining experience.

Interesting topic and discussion.

[Lee Schierer]

An expert is someone you hire when you can't figure it out yourself who comes more than 50 miles and earns more than $100 per hour and then tells you what you already knew.

[Darius Ferlas]

Picture a person programming a computer 8 hours a day every day for five years. Bingo, say hello to Bill Gates.

A shrewd businessman and yes, he did programming, but there was little quality in it.

Back to the topic.
I don't think there are rules as to how long it takes to become a master. Mozart performed in front of European royalty at the age of 5. The performances included his own compositions. At the age of 15 he heard Gregorio Allegri's Miserere once in performance in the Sistine Chapel, then wrote it out in its entirety from memory, only returning to correct minor errors—thus producing the first illegal copy of this closely guarded property of the Vatican.

I think it is conceivable that 5 years may yield a master cabinet maker. In some cases 50 years wouldn't be enough.

[george wilson]

True,innate talent has a lot to do with it. that's why the OP is not possible to answer.

[Ben Hatcher]

I think that some of you need to look at the definition of the word expert. It is a lot less exclusive than your posts imply. Gates, Woods, Gretsky are much more than just experts. They are the best of the best. They are the foremost experts. Just because you aren't Tiger Woods doesn't mean that you're not an expert golfer. I'd say that any scratch golfer is an expert golfer. Many of you are very humble, but you are also expert woodworkers.

10,000 hours devoted to a specific enough focus is more than enough time for someone with the ability to become very skilled at that task. Therefore, by definition, he or she would be an expert.

[Chris Tsutsui]

10,000 hours of anything will definitely make you better at something.

I followed a Scandinavian cabinet builder and he said that in Denmark, you need 4 years apprenticeship before you can move to the next step.

That equates to around 8,320 hours of ripping, sanding, and sweeping...

A long time ago I also ran an RTS game clan and my advice to avid young gamers was to play 1000 games before you are considered a worthy opponent.

[Leo Graywacz]

I guess I might qualify.....I probably have close to 60.000 hours.

[Billy Chambless]

I agree with most of the comments here about innate talent and hours spent learning. One additonal thought is that time alone doesn't make you better. You could have 1 year of experience and 20 years on the job. If you don't challenge yourself or learn from your errors you are just repeating steps, not gaining experience.



Reading the earlier comments, I was thinking of a question from a book on software engineering: "Do you have 14 years experience, or 1 year's experience, 14 times?"

[Kevin Barnett]

Malcolm has thoughtful ideas. However, his picking out 10,000 hours is an example. He could have picked 4,000 to 20,0000 (2 years to 20 years).

He's also stating something that's pretty obvious. Spend enough time at it, you'll probably become an expert - especially if you're doing it for an income. If you can't make an income from it, you'll move on.

Blink was also a good read.

[Tom Seaman]

Malcolm has thoughtful ideas. However, his picking out 10,000 hours is an example. He could have picked 4,000 to 20,0000 (2 years to 20 years).


The 10,000 hours wasn't an example, it was an estimate he calculated based on real-world examples such as the Beatles, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, etc.

[sean m. titmas]

i can see that this thread will continue to go back and forth as the definition and explanation of what an expert is as well as the validity of the importance of such a title is discussed
. im sure we could bring in a professional expert to argue the point all day long but i think most of us here would find them just plain annoying. im also sure that people who are impressed with titles and people who consider expertise to be a lofty goal will disagree with me here but i think its all a bunch of nonsense. who cares weather or not someone is an "expert" in their field. Its just a title that is used to give the holder an air of superiority that he uses to stroke his own ego. however i am impressed with someone who has a high degree of skills and experience yet demonstrates the humility to reject the dead end path of self gratification. Someone who knows how to use their acquired knowledge to benefit themselves and others is worth emulating but not because he has put in the time and been given a title.

[Bill White]

I have hired helpers who have a college degree. THEY CAN'T READ A FRICKIN' TAPE MEASURE. :confused:
I am of the opinion that expertise is a perception.
Bill

[David DeCristoforo]

"I have hired helpers who have a college degree. THEY CAN'T READ A FRICKIN' TAPE MEASURE."

I think the point is that "time on task" does not automatically translate into "expertise". There are too many other factors to consider. I have had guys work for me for years and never get any better at what they do. Mostly because they are simply there for the paycheck and as long as they get that, they are happy. A person with the "right" attitude will become "expert" in much less time than a person who has no motivation. And, as has been discussed "ad infinitum", you cannot disallow natural ability and/or "talent". The "most talented" people will continue to develop long after they have reached the point at which they could be considered "expert".

Someone mentioned the Beatles. At what point did the Beatles become "expert" musicians? In '62 after their stint in Hamburg? In '64 after they had become insanely popular? Or maybe in '66 when they released "Rubber Soul"? Or when they released Sgt. Pepper? Or later with the "White Album". Some say that Abbey Road was their "best" work. Even if you agree with this, would that mean that they did not become "expert" until that point? It seems to me that they were "expert" very early in their careers but continued to develop for many years after that, becoming "more expert" as time went on. Their later music was, without a doubt, more complex and "developed" than their early work. But I would think that any band capable of producing music of the quality they exhibited in '62 - '64 would qualify them as expert.

[Chip Lindley]

An arbitrary length of time spent in learning cannot be applied verbatum to any one individual, rendering him an *expert* in a given field! Some absorb information much faster than others. Some learn quickly from their mistakes. Some never learn...either way.

Never confuse being a *professional* with being an *expert*! Some shoddy *professionals* should find a different line of *expertise*!

And then there are those *armchair* experts who can tell you everything about a subject, but have little or No practical experience. (Those who cannot DO, Teach!...or become movie critics!)

Personally, the more I learn, the more I find I don't know! Life is too short!

[Sean Nagle]

Speaking of the Beatles as being expert musicians. I read an interview with Paul McCartney where he mentioned that neither he nor John Lennon could read or write music. Rather than expert musicians, they might be considered musical artists.

[Sam Babbage]

I'm currently an apprentice cabinet-maker, I have over 5000 hours as an apprentice and probably close to that as a hobbiest/enthusiast. I'd consider myself mildly skilled; certainly far from an expert.

[Leo Graywacz]

When I was first introduced into the wood working shop as a newbie I was under the wing of a guy that had been working for over 15 years in the shop. After 3 years with him I started to teach him things. He was very skilled but really lacked the mechanical aspect of things. This is a place that I excelled. I got named the jig master because I was able to come up with all kinds of jigs and templates for any job we had.

Working by yourself you need to get creative at times to do things that would be so easy if there was another guy there to help you.

[sean m. titmas]

I was married long enough to be considered an expert, two times over in fact but just ask my x-wife and she will attest to the fact that im anything but an expert.

[Brock Poling]

If you have not read this book you should. It is an amazingly interesting read. Some of the facts are undisputable (the trends for professional hockey players to be born in the first quarter of their birth year), etc.

He does not say that talent has NO bearing on eventual success, what he says is that the talent gap between those who rise to the top, and those who do not is very small. Those that show promise get encouragement, better teachers/coaches, practice more, etc. And over time this widens that gap considerably.

Sure Shaq isn't going to be a jockey, someone would have figured this out long ago and he would have never been selected for advancement, better training, etc.

He also makes some very interesting observations about being born at the "right time" (now he is talking birth year) to be at the crossroads of history and precisely the right moment. His examples about Bill Joy are perfect.

Again, whether you agree with this or not, you should read the book. You will find it fascinating.

[Tom Schmidt]

(Those who cannot DO, Teach!...or become movie critics!)

Gotta be honest, as a hard working middle school math teacher, that line has offended me since the first time I heard it 30 years ago. It obviously implies that teaching is a no-brainer occupation, which is so wrong as to laughable. I challenge anyone to spend a day or two in an urban middle school classroom of 35-40 kids and walk out with the same impression of teaching.

[Darius Ferlas]

Speaking of the Beatles as being expert musicians. I read an interview with Paul McCartney where he mentioned that neither he nor John Lennon could read or write music. Rather than expert musicians, they might be considered musical artists.
A similar misconception hovers around about Bill Gates as an expert programmer.
Competent? Yes.
Expert? A lot of true experts are on the fence about that one.
Above expert? No way.

Somewhere among the quotes we stumble upon on the net I found this (paraphrased): experience comes from mistakes, the more you make the more experienced you are. So often it does take time get through a good number of mistakes before one learns how to avoid them.

Things have changed though fom the times of Mozart or old wood masters. A few hundred years, or even decades ago one could not learn much about anything other than from direct participation in a trade. That participation is still important and critical at times. Still, so much knowledge is available around the internet that whatever took someone a few days or weeks to even realize is a potential issue, can now be known after a few clicks.

For instance. I am looking into some veneering. I needed to know what adhesives to use. I did not have to mount a horse, ride 20 miles to the nearest cabinet maker and ask him about it, or better yet, see how he does it. I didn;t even have to drive. Instead, I used SMC's search engine. I also found a few clips on youtube where they show how veneering is done.

Have I became an expert in veneering? Heck, no! But I surely made the first steps much faster than an apprentice 100 years ago would have.

[george wilson]

Strange,how a question that cannot be answered goes on for several pages.

[Bob Slater]

More worrysome is when do you lose it? Once McCartney did Silly Love Songs, SAy Say Say and Ebony and Ivory? Jeez.

[Darius Ferlas]

I don;t think it's strange.
If the question were to be easilly answered then the thread would have died after the first response.

Try asking for the result of this 2+2 ;)

[Norman Hitt]

An arbitrary length of time spent in learning cannot be applied verbatum to any one individual, rendering him an *expert* in a given field! Some absorb information much faster than others. Some learn quickly from their mistakes. Some never learn...either way.

Never confuse being a *professional* with being an *expert*! Some shoddy *professionals* should find a different line of *expertise*!

And then there are those *armchair* experts who can tell you everything about a subject, but have little or No practical experience. (Those who cannot DO, Teach!...or become movie critics!)

Personally, the more I learn, the more I find I don't know! Life is too short!

Your points are well founded Chip. It's not the Hours one puts in, but what one puts into each hour, (and not everyone learns equally). About 30 years ago a company owner asked his Chief Pilot why he didn't hire a particular pilot applicant that was a retired military pilot instead of the younger civilian trained pilot. The Chief pilot, being an ex Military pilot himself said, Lots of guys coming out of the Military profess to have 20 years flying experience, but unfortunately, many of them just have ONE years experience 20 times, and HE was one of those.;) Unfortunately, he was correct in his observations at that time, (which has changed a lot for the better since then), but unfortunately, that same principle can be applied today to many other skills, trades and professions.