10,000 hours

[Christopher Charles]

Hello all,

Was just thinking about the proposition put forth by Malcolm Gladwell and others that to truly master or to have impact in a field it takes inherent talent + 10,000 hours of practice.

I've been pursing wood enthusiastically for about 5 years now. I manage to get about 3 hours a week on average in the shop (generously). Thus, (and assuming I have some inherent talent...), I have accumulated 780 hours toward "mastery".

At this rate, I'll hit 10,000 in 59 years....

Of course there are many roads to Rome ("mastery"), but the 10,000 hour rule seems to hold some water across a bunch of endeavours. What do all y'all think, and when will you make it to "Master".

Cheers,
Chris C.

[Chris Griggs]

Never. I don't think there is truly such a thing as mastering a craft. Mastering style, mastering a skill or technique, sure, but not a craft.

However, after 10k hours - yeah I bet one could master enough skills and techniques to be a Master within a craft - if that makes sense.

Don't know if I'll ever get there. I've been at this 3 years - lately I get 4-8 hours a week - sometime more, sometimes less. I'd say over three years 3 to 4 hours a week is probably a good average estimate since early on I did go through extended times where I didn't work at all for a number of weeks. That puts me at anywhere from 468 to 624 hours total. I've got a long way to go!

[Bill Houghton]

Gives you a goal, anyway.

[Dustin Keys]

Well I just completed my bench build this week, and it feels like it took me 10,000 hours. Does that make me a master? Probably not, I guess I'm supposed to actually practice for 10,000 hours...

D

[David Keller NC]

That's a good description of the Japanese model for learning/mastering a craft - the master gives you a (simple) task, and you practice 12 hours a day, non-stop until you'd just about rather take a bullet to the chest than do it one more time. Then the master gives you another simple task.:)

[Tony Zaffuto]

I have no specific goal. To have one, would make my hobby a job and I like my hobby because of the lack of constraints. It is bad enough to have someone ask if I'm ever going to finish something, let alone them asking me if I'll ever become a master.

[Jim Rimmer]

Aside from the discussion of whether or not you can ever master anything, if you worked at a craft full time (40 hours a week) it would take 5 years to accumulate the 10,000 hours. With all the variety of joints, inlay, veneering, finishing, etc involved in woodwork I don't think you could "master" it in 5 years.

[Marko Milisavljevic]

You couldn't become master of all woodworking knowledge, no more than a doctor would know all of medicine, or a computer programmer would know all APIs, languages and programming methodologies. Generally, it is accepted that being a master in a complex craft really means in a subset of the craft. For example, I suspect you could master all aspects of making Shaker furniture in 10,000 hours.

[Christopher Charles]

Ah, to be a bit more clear about the 10,000 hours idea, it comes from a comparison of what's in common among the best creators/athletes/aristists, etc ("Outliers" in a good way). In the case of woodworking, Maloof and Krenov would be obvious outliers. And they were recognized masters of a particular form, not necessilarly every single aspect of the craft (just as Hendrix wasn't the greatest guitarist of all genres), as Chris said above. Of course, a part of the first 10,000 hours is probably settling into a particular form or genre.

Cheers,
C

[Chris Griggs]

The wonderful thing about the Masters is they are often masters because they created their own style. Yes they built on the giants that came before them, but very consistently create there own amalgamations of the craft, style, etc...

This is certainly true of Krenov and Maloof. For musicians, Ringo comes to mind (I'm a drummer). He was/is technically nothing spectacular as a drummer, but his sound was his very own, no one sounds just like Ringo, no one will ever be better at being Ringo then Ringo.

[Niels Cosman]

I'd say 10K is about right

[george wilson]

You cannot put a figure up to say how many hours it will take to become a master. It depends a lot on natural talent to begin with.

Then,there are a LOT of people out there who have developed great skill,but have absolutely NO TASTE. This may or may not ever be mastered. Totally different thing,but every bit as important as the skill itself.

[Trevor Walsh]

I'd subscribe more to mastery in a technique by technique basis. Some tasks or techniques are particularly easy for a certain person to get good at. How many of those does it take to be a good woodworker? I don't know. I think after some indeterminate period of time you are familiar with enough techniques, seen enough, screwed up enough that you are better at it than others. The 10K hours thing is basically 8 hour workdays 5 days a week for 5 years with two weeks vacation. You can do something for five years and still not be good at it. Mastery is when you are good at it, and someone else says you're good at it.

[James Owen]

Another way to look at this is repetitions. The rule of thumb in martial arts is that it takes about 5,000 correctly-performed repetitions to create the muscle memory to reflexively perform a particular technique. I suspect that something like this is also true in woodworking, especially for operations like sawing, chopping mortises and paring with a chisel, and probably hand planing. Other operations like using an egg beater drill or a bit brace would probably also benefit from numerous repetitions.

[george wilson]

You cannot pigeon hole people.

[James Taglienti]

The concept is ludicrous, putting a number of hours on mastery of anything... All people are different, even those with inherent talent. Its like saying if 20 cars leave a parking lot at the same time they will all get home in exactly 15 minutes. Some drive fast, some drive slow, some stop at the store, some arent even going home to begin with!

[george wilson]

You speak wisely,James. I trained about 22 people during my stay as Master Musical Instrument Maker in Williamsburg. Before that,I trained many dozens of students from 8th. grade through high school,and college. They were all different.

Some could never,ever learn to draw or especially to design,though they could make good copies of something. Others could learn to draw. I would not consider anyone a master who could not originate his own design work,and do it tastefully.

[Jim Koepke]

If I had 10,000 hours to master woodworking, I would spend the first 9,000 hours sharpening my tools...

There are things that I have mastered in less than 10,000 hours.

There are some things that I will never master even if I am given 10,000,000 hours.

jtk

[Chris Griggs]

I mastered how to ruin up a perfectly good piece of wood on the very first project I ever built. I'm still quite good at this.

I'm also quite good at turning small imperfections that no one would have ever noticed into glaring mistakes that are often very difficult to correct.

[Mark Dorman]

I think woodworking is one of many things in life that are continually improved upon.
To me It's not a 10,000 step procedure it's a never ending process. Kind of like what sharp is to me; a moving target.

My quote is about nonstop improvment through effort.

[Chris Griggs]

I think woodworking is one of many things in life that are continually improved upon.
To me It's not a 10,000 step procedure it's a never ending process. Kind of like what sharp is to me; a moving target.

My quote is about nonstop improvment through effort.

That's a really good analogy Mark. I like that...."moving target". It applies to many aspects of woodworking and to the pursuit of perfection in general.

[Jason Coen]

The concept is ludicrous, putting a number of hours on mastery of anything

It's actually not, at least in the way it's presented in the book.

The book doesn't say "spend 10,000 hours doing X and you will master X", but rather notes that among those that are considered "masters" in their particular endeavor (Bill Gates, The Beatles, etc.) they have all spent at least 10,000 hours mastering their craft. Conversely, one could posses great inherent talent, but never become a master without devoting the time necessary to refine the inherent talent.

[Dave Beauchesne]

My two cents:

I once watched a program on the number of repetitions it took the human body to ' memorize ' a certain action: the cases used were drawing a gun or knife from a holster or sheath. That number was 3,000. I often liken that to say, maintaining proper honing angle on a stone, or saw stroke ' muscle memory ' when sawing a dovetail. That 3,000 number makes sense to me, and one only has to count the pile of shavings on the floor after flattening a small panel.

JMHO, Dave Beauchesne

[george wilson]

WHY would it take 3000 reps to draw a gun or knife?????? Do you mean at lightening speed?

I hope it doesn't take that long to learn to use a knife and fork,or we'd all starve to death!!:)

[Chris Woodward]

First you learn that lines make letters; then letters make words. Next you learn that those word make sentences. Sentences make paragraphs, and paragraphs make up chapters. After 10,000 hours, you have just learned to read the manual.

[Jason Coen]

WHY would it take 3000 reps to draw a gun or knife?????? Do you mean at lightening speed?


Something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAfcbBAbRiQ&hd=1

Or this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3fgduPdH_Y

Or this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hgdq1FBYTUE

:-)

[Tom Scott]

Interesting discussion. Woodworking is very similar to my profession as a structural engineer. There are so many different structural systems and materials that it is a continual learning process. After 20 years I am still learning new things all the time. Would all the other engineers in my firm consider me a "Master"? Quite likely. Do I know everything? Not by a long shot and I never will. Similar to woodworking, you can master tasks along the way, but only when you can put them all together in a masterful way can you start to gain that moniker.
The 10,000 hour mark is also interesting as that is essentially the experience that is required before someone can apply for testing to become a licenced engineer. But, most (structural) engineers feel woefully inadequate to design an entire building even after they are licensed. I have also trained enough people to know that it is purely individual. Some just have more inate ability than others and can master tasks more quickly. Some never get it, but can become proficient and adequate.
I have a ways to go to reach the 10,000 hour mark in woodworking, and would consider my self in the "proficient and adequate" stage". I will most likely never reach the Master level, but it is fun trying.

[David Kumm]

You can have 10,000 hours of experience, or 1 hour experience 10,000 times. Some learn, some don't. Dave

[James Taglienti]

Now I finally know what that LN block plane holster it for!

[Gary Herrmann]

I'd have to assume the OP is referring to muscle memory. I don't think you can compare creativity to the repetitive process of smooth planing a table top or whatever.

I played basketball competitively. I've shot over 10,000 free throws. I haven't played in 6 years, but when I step up to the line when I'm coaching, my body remembers what to do.

That is not the same thing as moving with the ball - creating.

[Richard Francis]

I came across the figure in Richard Sennett's book The Craftsman (Yale 2008) as a working definition of how long a conventional 7 year apprenticeship offered towards mastery. Gladwell of course stole it and subverted it.
Here is part of the blurb for Sennett's book:
'Defining craftsmanship far more broadly than “skilled manual labor,” Richard Sennett maintains that the computer programmer, the doctor, the artist, and even the parent and citizen engage in a craftsman’s work. Craftsmanship names the basic human impulse to do a job well for its own sake, says the author, and good craftsmanship involves developing skills and focusing on the work rather than ourselves. In this thought-provoking book, one of our most distinguished public intellectuals explores the work of craftsmen past and present, identifies deep connections between material consciousness and ethical values, and challenges received ideas about what constitutes good work in today’s world.'
It is a serious discussion by a philosopher/sociologist that deserves more than the pop journalism treatment.
That would be a good start for a substantive discussion.

[John Powers]

Not recommending it but for this discussion it would have been helpful to have read gladwells book. As mentioned, he looked at successful people, not crafters as I recall, bill gates, athletes, musicians and just seemed they all had put in 10,000 hours. Some people hate the book because it tries to explain away what some think of as genius or gifts by citing the opportunities successful people had. For example bill gates was raised in a school district that had a bent toward IT and his mom headed up efforts to enhance the department and bill and his pals got unlimited access to Raytheons unused computers. The My guitar teacher told me 15 years ago don't kid yourself this has to do with gifts....it's about work. All Gladwells subjects loved what they were doing as a person working in a woodworking shop or instrument or boatbuilding shop would. The notion that you can't really master a thing doesn't stand up when you consider a Herreshoff boat, orvis fly rod or a Hauser Guitar. On a related subject arthur Rubinstein one of the foremost pianists of the last century said he could skip practice for one day and only he would notice, two days and the critics would notice and three days and the audience would notice. A little like cutting dovetails?

[Gary Curtis]

A few decades ago, a radio-show psychiatrist in Los Angeles (Dr. David Viscott) devoted a session to telling about one of the happiest people he knew. And the happiest place, as well. So, for a half hour, instead of hearing people call in with their woes, he told a story about a musical instrument maker in Massachusetts. He spoke at length about the joyful atmosphere in this fellow's shop. He then talked about the most wonderful museum in America, in his opinion. The American crafts museum in Cape Anne (or was it Glouster) Massachusetts.

Along with this described the process in Colonial America whereby an apprentice became a master: the 'final exam' was to create a "masterpiece". That is where the word entered our language. Among the most wonderful examples were flintlock rifles, involving woodwork, brass and steel components.

So, instead of quantifying hours required, maybe the criteria for us should be a product --- the ability to craft a masterpiece. And would somebody from New England name that town and the craft museum? That psychiatrist talked about it for nearly 20 minutes, and he was in rapture doing so.

[george wilson]

Your guitar teacher was wrong. I have been playing guitar since 1954,and I'm never going to play like Sabicas. Playing an instrument well involves how inhibited you are,among other things,not just developing dexterity. On the other hand,I am good at making and designing things,and was well on my way even in high school.

[James Owen]

Very impressive skills....

[george wilson]

I have taught many to play the guitar. I was teaching this 13 year old neighbor's son to play. He could learn 4 times faster than I ever could have. Unfortunately,he turned out to be a sneaky little future criminal who was certainly bound for lots of jail time. His father was worthless,too. The mother had to have the kid attend the same school she taught in,so she could keep an eye on him.

Took a few weeks to find out is nature. Too bad to waste his talent.

[Rick Fisher]

If you watched that old black and white french furniture factory movie, it had an old fella and a young guy.. the young guy looked about 20 yrs old..

They built furniture with wooden hand planes, hand saws, rasps and chisels..

The young guy was taking direction from the old fella, he seemed to be an apprentice ..

In that case, 10,000 hours makes a bunch of sense.. it could be a bit more or a bit less, but its 4-5 years of being the apprentice ..

Imagine working 8-10 hours a day with hand tools, being told what to do and how to do it until you did it right every time.. After 10,000 hours.. if you had not been fired .. how skilled would you be ?

[John Powers]

George, your the woodworking guru, Bill Newman is the classical guitar guru. Difference Is that Bill would never opine on woodworking. My teacher, 15 years ago, looked at what I brought to the studio and told me I could become a good classical guitar player.....not Segovia, but with a lot of work a good player. So, no your wrong. You want to watch getting out of you depth. I'm all ears when your talking woodwork or instrument building but beyond that your just another guy. Bills not teaching anyone to play Freight Train or Foggy Mountain Breakdown. You teach that ungrateful kid to play Bachs Little Violin Suite? Anyone can strum C, F and G.

[Dave Beauchesne]

WHY would it take 3000 reps to draw a gun or knife?????? Do you mean at lightening speed?

I hope it doesn't take that long to learn to use a knife and fork,or we'd all starve to death!!:)

George: The gist of the 3,000 reps was muscle memory to come up with the exact same result every time. In the case of the gun being drawn, I suppose out of the holster flawlessly every time, and the sights dead on the target. Watching the three videos; I am pretty sure 3,000 reps was just the beginning!

Dave B

[george wilson]

I have pondered how to reply to your "I'm out of my depth" assumption,John. 5 of my apprentices had degrees in music,namely,classical guitar. One studied with Segovia. One spent 3 years studying in Spain. I have been playing music and have been around excellent guitarists most of my career. My career did bridge music and woodworking,instrument making and machining.

Now,I never said I was a bad player,just not Sabicas,who was the greatest flamenco guitarist in my,and in many other's opinions. At least he accepted a guitar from me in 1967. I was paid to play special occasions in Williamsburg for many years. Most thought I was a talented musician,but I knew I was not a master of the guitar. Had many times 10,000 hours in playing,too. I need a new right thumb joint from playing the guitar.

The basic stance by the O.P. was that with talent AND 10,000 hours,you could master something. I know from a great deal of experience that this rigid 10,000 hour figure is just not the case. You do not know enough about me to say that I am out of my depth,and,with all due respect, I do not accept your rather brash assumption after having spent many,many years teaching others and meeting other craftsmen. You cannot pigeon hole people like that. It just doesn't work.

I have known young people with talent that some would never begin to have,no matter how many hours they spent at it. Others I have known,in their late 70's, still did sloppy work. Some of my apprentices began to do excellent work in just a few years. Others,after several years,did not achieve what others did in a shorter time. A work year was 2080 hours,but a lot of that time was spent talking to the public. So when I say a person became accomplished in a few years,I'm certainly not talking about 10,000 hours. Could they learn to draw,learn taste,and be creative,not just copying? That is something entirely different.

I am sure that if all of us reflect upon those we have known,we will all have met similar diverse people.

And no,I was not teaching the kid to play what you assumed I was. No idea where that came from.

Hopefully,this post does not sound harsh. That was not my purpose.

[Jack Curtis]

You all may be interested in a NYTimes article today, called "Sorry Strivers - Talent Matters."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/opinion/sunday/sorry-strivers-talent-matters.html
(http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/opinion/sunday/sorry-strivers-talent-matters.html)
Jack

PS Is it me or is the new link function brain dead? I can get the link, but can't seem to override the link with a more convenient label.

[george wilson]

Jack,your article points out what I have been saying in so many words. John's teacher evaluated HIS particular potential in terms of becoming a good guitarist,but that evaluation applied only to him,not to everyone. My experiences with my students parallel what is contained in your article.

The young man who replaced me as toolmaker was in his thirties,and came from a silver smithing background. He had already spent 5 years making custom silver at Tiffany's (no small accomplishment,think about getting that job!) before spending 3 years working in the silver smith's shop in Williamsburg. Though the Master there had been at it for at least 20 years,this young man should have been teaching him. That's the truth,and that's why he switched jobs. He had minimal experience in woodworking and in machining,but picked it up very rapidly.

That said,I did not care for his sense of design,and was beginning to have an influence on that when I retired.

This thread is one of those theoretical types that causes nothing but endless debate,and isn't even about woodworking. I know where I stand and have the career to back it up. But I'm about done with this,and with being judged by those who really make huge assumptions and do not know me.

[Ed Looney]

The concept of 10,000 hours to achieve mastery may be fun to ponder but is pondering a supposition with an obvious flaw going to produce value? I can't help but think that attaching hours to the concept of mastery only to ignore talent makes the hours supposition flawed. The effect of raw talent can't be measured in hours as the link to the video below will establish. This young lady is 10 years old and it wold be impossible for her to have spent 10,000 hours perfecting her gift. Can she improve her talent with hours of practice, absolutely. However there are those who have spent 10,000 hours training their voices who are not where this 10 year old is in her craft. Raw talent is a factor that just defies measures of time and effort.

PS. Click on skip the add to get to the good stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKhmFSV-XB0


Ed

[David Weaver]

George, your the woodworking guru, Bill Newman is the classical guitar guru. Difference Is that Bill would never opine on woodworking. My teacher, 15 years ago, looked at what I brought to the studio and told me I could become a good classical guitar player.....not Segovia, but with a lot of work a good player. So, no your wrong. You want to watch getting out of you depth. I'm all ears when your talking woodwork or instrument building but beyond that your just another guy. Bills not teaching anyone to play Freight Train or Foggy Mountain Breakdown. You teach that ungrateful kid to play Bachs Little Violin Suite? Anyone can strum C, F and G.

I'd agree with george. I played a lot of guitar in my younger days, not classical, but a lot of guitar, and several other instruments. I don't know what level of talent you have, but I would not have been a session guitarist or performing guitarist in demand with 10,000 hours of playing, probably not even 20,000 or 30,000 hours. I could make a little money in a cover band, but I recognize that where I was after probably 2000 hours of playing, there are kids that have been past that in dexterity and timing and musical sense in multiples less. It would be senseless for me to spend 30,000 hours to become a very mediocre guitarist with a big repertoire.

The people you see who are really at the top are the people who have the talent and the drive. Not just people who have worked and worked, and occasionally there are top players who practice relatively little compared to some other top players - but generally a combination of the two. I don't know bill, but I don't have to - i'm guessing he knows a lot less about woodworking than george knows about guitar and professional musicianship. Instructors often tell kids that they're going to have to work hard because some kids who have talent think they won't need to do much to develop it. If your instructor told you that you may become a good guitarist, that doesn't mean you would've ever been able to make a living doing it, at least not a pure performance and musicianship living (there are some people who can make a living playing corny poppy stuff, but that's a different issue).

The same is true in some sports, golf is an example. It is very hard to find someone who was a 20 handicapper for several years, and who ends up being a tournament golfer. I can only think of one. Stories about people like jack nicklaus winning local events as a teen are much more common. As far as music, Itzhak Perlman is an example. Talent and work.

Pick the level of accomplishment (the perlman, or edgar meyer or whoever at the top level) and the higher the top level, the less it would make sense for an average person to think they could just get there with work.

[Jack Curtis]

...This thread is one of those theoretical types that causes nothing but endless debate,and isn't even about woodworking. I know where I stand and have the career to back it up. But I'm about done with this,and with being judged by those who really make huge assumptions and do not know me.

It always gives me great pleasure to refute the Gladwells and Brookses of this world.

Jack

[Steve Branam]

These were my thoughts on this subject a year ago: http://www.closegrain.com/2010/11/mastering-craft.html (you'll have to scroll down past the class stuff). But I figured I would hit the 10,000 hour mark in 35 years. Even then, 10,000 hours is only 5 years full time.

[geoff wood]

i think it might be true if you were doing one thing for 10,000 hours- finishing, inlay, stairbuilding etc. cabinetmaking/woodworking/furniture making is just too multi-faceted. if you really want to try to master it, get a job doing it everyday; where one is completely engrossed in the craft. im about 15,000 hours into finish carpentry/remodeling, definately not a 'master' of anything. but i do know how to not starve.

[Dustin Keys]

George, your the woodworking guru, Bill Newman is the classical guitar guru. Difference Is that Bill would never opine on woodworking. My teacher, 15 years ago, looked at what I brought to the studio and told me I could become a good classical guitar player.....not Segovia, but with a lot of work a good player. So, no your wrong. You want to watch getting out of you depth. I'm all ears when your talking woodwork or instrument building but beyond that your just another guy. Bills not teaching anyone to play Freight Train or Foggy Mountain Breakdown. You teach that ungrateful kid to play Bachs Little Violin Suite? Anyone can strum C, F and G.

I stay out of heated woodworking debates (I'm a newb), but since we've turned to performing music - I'm in.

Wasn't the idea of this discussion about being a "master" of a craft? Being pretty decent and being a master are not the same thing. You can think that it isn't about "gifts" but about "work" all you want, but I can assure you that some people can work very hard for many years and never master the guitar even though they put in well more than 10,000 hours of good practice. Some people have a gift for it, and they excel within a relatively short period of time and go on to accomplish what many would consider to be mastery. I've seen this play out time and time again. You either have "it" or you don't. No amount of work makes "it" appear out of thin air in my experience.

But about the 10,000 hours thing... I haven't read the book, but I've heard the topic debated among musicians before, but with a twist from how you guys are describing it. The twist is that the 10,000 hours isn't merely playing (or woodworking, etc), but it's 10,000 hours of concentrated practice. There's quite a difference between concentrated practice and merely doing an activity. 10,000 hours of repeating a task or activity is likely to leave you little better than you were at the beginning if you aren't actively seeking to progress your skills constantly. I often see people vainly repeating the skills they already have and can use and calling that practice, but it accomplishes almost nothing. Most people can't practice at a highly concentrated level for very long in one sitting, so that 10,000 hour mark is very difficult to accomplish and usually takes quite a number of years.

My personal opinion is that a person with a unique talent for a given field can master it with 10,000 hours of concentrated practice. In my experience, very few people ever find such a talent in themselves and devote the necessary time and energy to develop it to mastery unfortunately.

D

[Christopher Charles]

Hello all,

Thanks to all for the stimulating discussion--I fully agree with the NYT article and George's observations that some people will never get there and some get there really quickly. I've seen both in my experience with academics. Like many simple rules, the 10,000 hour rule is probably incorrect but has some kernel of truth... (interestingly, Ph.D. programs are typicallly 5 years).

In my OP, I was curious about how others feel they have progressed toward feeling like they've mastered some element of woodwork and (as mostly hobbist) woodworkers, how quickly they might be getting there, etc. At least as curious about that as the truth of a 10,000 hour rule.

Thanks!
Chris C.