I was listening to BBC Radio 4 the other evening and there was this guy being interviewed that stated that it takes 10,000 hours to become an expert at any one subject whether playing an instrument, writing, web design or whatever. This equates to five years full-time or ten years part-time. In response to ideas about naturally gifted people, he cited the case of Mozart who was considered a child prodigy, his first symphony, he argues, created in his teenage years wasn't actually that good – he didn't really master his art until a lot later. Actually, this theory chimes in with my own experience of the world. Learning web design and marketing there is always, always new stuff to learn. Not only are you catching up with the years (decades!) previous, but also trying to keep a breast of what is changing now and what lies in the immediate future. I found this “10,000 hours†idea quite inspiring to tell you the truth. It just reaffirmed to me that there is much work to do, and that success comes with application rather than some sort of generic predisposition. What do people think?
I actually read the same thing in a magazine last year and it is so true. Its good because it gives you a goal to work towards which helps you in the learning process and encourages you to keep going.
It depends on the subject, but I think you need at least a few years of full time experience before you're an expert.
Nobody is an expert because nobody is perfect, so how can he state it takes 10,000 hours to become an expert?
While I would agree a expert is someone who has lots of knowledge and time put in, I have been doing web work for 8 years and I am no where near an expert! Well not always anyways HAHA
I think that's also true. Some people are going to catch on quicker than others... I could study music for 10,000 hours and still not be able to write a symphony like Mozart...