I'm not going to spoil the book for you, but Malcolm Gladwell's most recent book has some interesting implications for those of you doing the AJATT or 10,000 sentences method. In it, Gladwell talks about the interesting fact that the magic number of hours needed to become an expert at something is 10,000 hours. That's about 3 hours per day for 10 years. They find this with every discipline under the sun. They looked at doctors, chess virtuosos, hockey players, composers, fiction writers, and all of the people widely considered to be at their highest level have all put at least 10,000 hours into their discipline. They found no evidence of a phenomenon called grinding, people studying more than 10,000 hours that were worse than other people who had practiced a similar amount. They also found no evidence of innate prodigies, people who practiced less than 10,000 hours but were able to skate by effortlessly matching those who had practiced more than they had.

I think this adds some credibility to the AJATT method that stresses working hard to achieve 10,000 sentences. I realize that sentences are not hours, but I think the two concepts go hand in hand. To be at a high level in Japanese you need to comfortable with 10,000 discrete pieces of information called sentences.

I find it amazingly comforting to know because I've always looked at myself as somewhat disadvantaged when it comes to anything non-English. I had zero exposure to foreign languages as a child, and so the language learning pieces of my brain solidified very early on English. I was always very good at English, but I always noticed that when it came to foreign languages that I was never able to do as well as my peers who had previous significant exposure to other foreign languages.

For me, it's comforting to know that the people doing better than myself have simply put more hours into the ability to learn languages at an earlier age. The book made me realize that as long as I work hard to close that gap, I can be as good as any other expert at Japanese.

Does anyone else find this fact interesting?

Well.. That's pretty much what I have always thought and I think it's just common sense..
Nothing comes without a price and if you want to be good at something, you need to practice!
I think the key here is "have all put at least 10,000 hours into their discipline".

Having put only 9,999 hours your not that good yet but put in that one hour more and you become a master? No. It is all about doing excessive amounts of something and not stopping at any milestone!
I think setting goals like 10,000 sentences instead of just gathering sentences is a good motivator though and it reminds you that you can't do it all at once. Adding a 100 sentences in a day is good thing, but you won't see real progress until you have studied consistently for half a year, a year, more..?

Do it consistently and put lots and lots of time into it and you will master it!

I made a post here earlier about an article he wrote about this concept. It is a very interesting concept which does make a lot of sense. Initially some will be more gifted than others at a particular ability, but once you spend so much time practicing, that intial talent has no bearing at all.

The author also appeared on the Colbert Report a while back plugging his book.

I didn't find it interesting, i found it common sense

I think it's more like 10,000 hours doing Japanese, be it sentences, listening, speaking or writing. That much parsing will drill it in well.

So that would make me an expert at videogames, I suppose. Though over the course of maybe 15-20 years, not 10 (I don't play 3 hours a day).

this is interresting.

if i take as example the game of go and look at proffesionals i can make an interresting conclusion.

these days the young players aiming to become proffesional in korea are often as strong as older(say 30-40 years old players) they often do not become pro becouse acceptace is extremly strikt, but if only the skill is considered they are of proffesional strengh.

the few people who pass are often as strong as title holders.
both the people who pass and who do not pass have put in at least 10.000 hours of study in 3-5 years.
what about those title holders that on par with those newcommers that spend at least 10.000 hours of study?
they themself passed the same test at some point, but after that point they might have spend more then 20.000 aditional hours, some older players are still at teir best when over 60, they might wel have spend something like 50.000 hours, but still they are on par with the newcommers?

you often hear about young prodegies who become title holders of record holders, but 10 years later they never have become much beter.

i think this is becouse at some point you forget a learned skill so fast all you can do is relearn them wih hours of study, if they spend 100.000 hours instead of 50.000 in those 50 years they would be stronger, but if they only spend 40.000 i think they would have become weaker over time.

i would conclude that the reason the books found the people who have mastery in some field have spend 10.000 hours is becouse that is the braking point where learning more "facts"(and thus getting beter) is offset by forgetting "facts" at a certain time-spending rate.
for example 3 hours a day for 10 years

people who spend less time will adjust to another braking point and are not considered a master for that very reason.

the few people who are a notch above most that are considered master can be explained in two ways, spending even more time so you can remember more "facts"
even though you also forget them even faster.
if you imagine the learning curve is a-symetrical then at the top of the graph you would have to put in a significant difference of time for a small increase of skills

the other people would be geniuses who are that becouse they have a way to put more information in the same amount of "facts".

how to explain common sense with a lot of words

it is fun to know if you only need 3 hours a day to become a master at something you can become master in about 5 things

its a good thing i can get at least a low level of proficientcy in "working out" while watching anime

The forgetting thing might work with languages but I'm not sure with a game like igo.

I think I have a possible explanation to your dilemma.. I don't know igo so much but I play chess and I think many things, that I have observed, apply here too.

The game is not only learning facts, but it requires a good deal of creativity and strategical thinking in addition to experience.
There is also a finite number of "good" strategies and counter strategies, that you can study, but at some point in the game you are left on your own and it's all about being able to read your opponent and use his weaknesses to your advantage.
There are also many factors that affect your game that don't really have anything to do with how much practice you have behind you so it is possible to screw up and lose to an inferior opponent whose style you just cant cope with so well..

alantin Wrote:There is also a finite number of "good" strategies and counter strategies, that you can study

While this is theoretically true, it isn't very applicable to igo, being the most complex game in the world. The possibilities of a game of igo exceeds the amount of atoms in the known universe... safe to say, even if you study strategies and counterstrategies your whole life, there won't be enough time to learn all of it.

Of course, all the strategies etc depend on the lowlevel ideas which are true for most situations, so I still agree with your post as a whole.

Yup, you can note that form the fact that the main go strategies are changing violently in 20-30 years cicles.

Go is very different from chess. There are many ways on how to become profficient at it and each pro seem to master it on its own way.

Young pros play very diferently from the older masters and they are proving their strenght.

Many years ago, probably the world strongest pro at the time, named Cho Chikun, told a korean boy in a tournament that he would teach him how to play real go. But Cho Lost.

That boy is Lee Chang Ho, and even playing in a style that made Cho think less of him, became one of the greatest of its age.

Tobberoth Wrote:

alantin Wrote:There is also a finite number of "good" strategies and counter strategies, that you can study

While this is theoretically true, it isn't very applicable to igo, being the most complex game in the world. The possibilities of a game of igo exceeds the amount of atoms in the known universe... safe to say, even if you study strategies and counterstrategies your whole life, there won't be enough time to learn all of it.

Probably. Like I said I don't know igo, but the situation must be the same that not all strategies are worth trying against anyone else than a complete beginner..

Anyway. My point is that one must gain a good insight of the game rather than learn all the strategies in the world. Thought studying strategies is a good way to gain that insight but you wont get good at playing unless you play (a lot!).

I don't really think that to be something that you can just forget..
It's like forgetting how to ride a bicycle!

with "facts" i ment not realy facts but something whatever it is you learned even intuition based knowledge or things like muscle memory for piano players.

what i wanted to point out how curious it is that you need a certain amount of effort to become a master in some field, but if you put considerable even multifold effort somehow it does not produce increasingly beter result.

for example, the go profesionals, i think they spend about 3-8 hours a day on average to beter thair game.
certainly not all of them spend 18 hours a day, but why would those that are equaly talented and DO put in 10 hours extra effort every day more of for 20 years not become unbeatable godlike players?
this apply to many field not only go players, think about football, math, darts, swordplay.

something slows this down and i think its that the amount of learning and forgetting are in pace.

on a sidenote, i know some go players that stopped for a long period, they often do not get must weaker, but hey leem to loose their "edge"
i think its becouse the broad strategical concepts are not easy to forget, but the specific moves/sequences used for those concepts do get forgoten.

nest0r Wrote:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/30/...print.html

Wow. What self-gratifying douche typed that? It is possible to make an argument without going to that level. (teh irony )

i kind of missed what the point was except that a dope tried to explain why Malcolm Gladwell is a dope.
not that iever heared about this figure before this topic.
is that a good or a bad thing?

btw im currently reading the 10th book in the swords of truth series from terry goodkind, very philsophicaly natured fantasy.

Respect Gladwell or not, the thing about 10,000 hours, I think, was found through research, not the ramblings of one overoptimistic individual.

alantin Wrote:Thought studying strategies is a good way to gain that insight but you wont get good at playing unless you play (a lot!).

I agree with you, but in go, most of the aspects of the game, you only learn by watching.
Playing and solving problems train your reading skill, wich of course is very important but it is useless without direction.

samesong Wrote:Initially some will be more gifted than others at a particular ability, but once you spend so much time practicing, that intial talent has no bearing at all.

The gifted only need 9,900 hours of practice. The slow pokes need 10,100.

mbaron Wrote:

samesong Wrote:Initially some will be more gifted than others at a particular ability, but once you spend so much time practicing, that intial talent has no bearing at all.

The gifted only need 9,900 hours of practice. The slow pokes need 10,100.

Source?

And he does look like Napleon.

mbaron Wrote:

samesong Wrote:Initially some will be more gifted than others at a particular ability, but once you spend so much time practicing, that intial talent has no bearing at all.

The gifted only need 9,900 hours of practice. The slow pokes need 10,100.

I suppose this is because the gifted can get to the "100 hours of practice" level with low effort, and the "untalented" take twice the work to know what the heck is going on -- but everyone's the same after that.

kazelee Wrote:Respect Gladwell or not, the thing about 10,000 hours, I think, was found through research, not the ramblings of one overoptimistic individual.

Given the loose definitions of 'field', 'expert level' and 'hour of study', I find that very improbable. But then again, I have not read the book.

Is he saying it takes 10,000 hours to master something?
That anyone with 10,000 hours is going to be a master?
That everyone with 10,000 hours will be at the same level?

"They found no evidence of a phenomenon called grinding, people studying more than 10,000 hours that were worse than other people who had practiced a similar amount."

Is it only looking at this set of truly dedicated individuals? I would think that most people who suck at something, would give up before the 10,000 hour mark.

You can definitely find examples "grinding" going on with people in the ~1,000 hours of study range. If someone studies as much or more than their classmates, but they still score worse than them, they tend to steer clear of that subject as much as possible. I'm not saying they can't learn it, they just lose interest due to frustration, so you won't find any of these people at the 10,000 hour mark.

Research into ways of learning and stuff is all well and good, especially if you're interested in that sort of stuff.

However, (assuming that everyone here is ~post university age) if you haven't found a suitable learning method for yourself by now, then you got a lot more things to worry about than some new psychological theory/study on learning. You guys are all straying away from the core aspect of these forums, which is essentially learning Japanese.

I think i've already said this but i'll say it again. It doesn't take a genius or research or anything to tell you that a little bit of work each day is the most efficient way of learning. 22 years of school and university has already taught me that.

Well, after 22 years you might want to think about increasing that little bit you do every day if you're concerned about efficiency.