you need at least 5 years of practice to be competent at a skill

[sushi]

5 years or the 10000 hr rule

discuss

 

[Hadoblado]

Both are arbitrary and reflect a shallow understanding of competence.

They don't take into account the difficulty of the task or the aptitude of the learner.

 

[Black Rose]

Competency = Task Dificulty / Learner Aptitude

C = TD / LA

 

[Happy]

Depends on how you’d define competence, but I think if we’re talking competence, it comes much sooner than that.

Mastery on the other hand, is a different story. For mastery of most skills, 10 years or 10’000 hours sounds about right to me. For more complex skills, mastery is nigh unattainable. There are some that mastery is not acknowledged for decades, if ever. I think this is most true for ‘skills’ that are more a culmination of several skills.

For instance, in the architecture world, there are few recognised masters under 50. I think this is because there are so many skills to master in the field.
(I think I’d call this kind of skill a ‘compound skill’, much like exercises that engage multiple muscle groups are called compound exercises. )

 

[baccheion]

That is probably more applicable to the norm/average IQ. At 2 standard deviations from the norm, for example, learning speed increases dramatically. In addition, nootropics can make learning trivial.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

That is probably more applicable to the norm/average IQ. At 2 standard deviations from the norm, for example, learning speed increases dramatically. In addition, nootropics can make learning trivial.

dunno about that, I've met a lot of dumb high-IQ people

on the 10,000 hour rule: it all depends. For skills that have structured and well-developed methods for learning, like playing the violin, or chess, it's probably a good rule of thumb. Other things, which don't have that, yet are considerably complex, it might be more. I also do believe there is such a thing as talent; as anyone can attest to, you're simply naturally good at some thing and bad at others. In some specific area, some people can acquire insane skills in maybe 1000 hours while someone else might spend their whole lives and never reach the same level.

 

[baccheion]

That is probably more applicable to the norm/average IQ. At 2 standard deviations from the norm, for example, learning speed increases dramatically. In addition, nootropics can make learning trivial.

dunno about that, I've met a lot of dumb high-IQ people

on the 10,000 hour rule: it all depends. For skills that have structured and well-developed methods for learning, like playing the violin, or chess, it's probably a good rule of thumb. Other things, which don't have that, yet are considerably complex, it might be more. I also do believe there is such a thing as talent; as anyone can attest to, you're simply naturally good at some thing and bad at others. In some specific area, some people can acquire insane skills in maybe 1000 hours while someone else might spend their whole lives and never reach the same level.

Dumb at a high IQ is possible, but on average learning speed goes way up.

 

[redbaron]

wow im 22 years overdue for being competent at living

 

[sushi]

whats the minimum time and years to get adequate competence, mastery from 0 or blank nothing?

10000 hrs is roughly 2 to 3 years if spread out, which i don't believe is enough.

5 to 6 years of intense practice is roughly enough for me.

(Ianguage learning, any skill , knowledge and experience included)

 

[Happy]

whats the minimum time and years to get adequate competence from 0 or blank nothing?

10000 hrs is roughly 2 to 3 years if spread out, which i don't believe is enough.

5 to 6 years of intense practice is roughly enough for me.

10,000 hours is more like 5 years at ~40 hours per week.

Unless you treat something as a full time job (or it is a full time job), you’re not likely to reach that amount of practice in that timeframe.

 

[redbaron]

speak for yourself, it only took me a little over a year to log 10,000 hours of breathing

i'm unbelievably talented

 

[CatGoddess]

Not if it took you that long to become competent at breathing.

 

[Happy]

How can we even be sure you’re competent? Do you have a certificate?

 

[Rolling Cattle]

It's easy to waste practice/study time. Study effectively and it could take somewhat less.

 

[jawdropper]

nah, i mean it's deeper than nah
in art, in less than one year i'm good enough for smart people to notice it, still relatively far from the elite (say my sub-objectively 30 prefered painters), no wonder i'll get there but that's smth personal, also my elite might not be yours even if i'm much more trained than you to dictate what's cool and what's not
in music, i'm good enough for musicians to notice it, but i have come to the realization that i have hardly any space in the current pop music panorama, also i think people are more able to misjudge music because their brain instinctually separate the pieces that constitute it, they don't see the whole picture or what you try to convey, for example, even if the instrumental track is super good and they might even say they like it, they might pick up a random voice line and feel awkward about it because you are not using the line in the way that normal language works for communication / normal language works for your tongue rock / etc, or they might actually hear you breathing before every line and that will let them see deeper into you and try to understand what you are all about, when there's nothing to read actually, with art they cannot deny the real front of them evidence same as when you play an instrument, in music there's composition, writing, recording, production. music is too easy to dislike and to throw away the whole work, in art, all the pieces are better tied together, it's less work.

wanna check my stuff; thegoodoldrama on instagram, follow and leave a like, much love.