[HN Gopher] Ask HN: 10k hours rule to master anything. Could I s...
___________________________________________________________________
Ask HN: 10k hours rule to master anything. Could I switch career
when I am 43?
Throughout his book "M. Outliers: The Story of Success.", Gladwell
repeatedly refers to the "10 000-hour rule," asserting that the key
to achieving true expertise in any skill is simply a matter of
practicing. It could be the greatest practice myth. My american
boss founded my company in Viet Nam when he was 55. I admire him a
lot. Nonetheless, I am still afraid of switching to other job
because time is running out when i am older. A lot of my friends
who are technical guys think so. Any advice?
Author : michaelcao
Score : 162 points
Date : 2022-10-07 10:10 UTC (12 hours ago)
| adamgordonbell wrote:
| There are so many follow up books about the subject, you could
| read one of them and learn more. Anders Ericsson, the source of
| the rule, has a popular science book called "Peak: Secrets from
| the New Science of Expertise" but also "Talent is Overrated" is a
| great book on the subject.
|
| The problem though is all these books are about well understood
| domains with a pedagogical framework you can grind thru. There is
| nobody saying this works in a field like 'entrepreneurship'.
|
| All the evidence is in things like chess or playing the violin
| where the path is well worn and a coach or mentor can keep you on
| the right path.
|
| In those fields, yes, deliberate practise works.
|
| https://www.amazon.ca/Peak-Secrets-New-Science-Expertise-ebo...
|
| https://www.amazon.ca/Talent-Overrated-Separates-World-Class...
| ibiza wrote:
| The programs described in "Peak" required a coach. Coaches play
| an integral role in the subject's road to mastery. Yet more
| evidence we cannot lift easy ideas like "mastery in just 10K
| hours" from psych research.
| adamgordonbell wrote:
| Malcolm Gladwell never claimed you could mastery anything in
| 10k hours. That is just what people thought he said. But yes,
| the research is all around defined fields with expert coaches
| guiding the way.
| gonzo41 wrote:
| At the end of the day a job is a job is a job. I would suggest
| you look at your current work and see if there's a sideways step
| you can get that keeps your current skills relevant but also
| gives you different exposure.
|
| I work in software, a sideways step for me would be to go towards
| admin / networky stuff, or to start doing BA style work.
|
| Fresh starts are hard only if you have existing commitments.
| engineer_22 wrote:
| 10k hours is only 5 years. You will be a master before you are
| 50.
| tgv wrote:
| My opinion:
|
| * The 10000 hour rule is nonsense. There are skills that require
| very much practice, and a lot of those are unattainable for most
| people. You could practice 10,000 hours on the violin or playing
| chess without reaching the lofty heights of Hahn or Magnusson.
| That does require some kind of "talent".
|
| * Many other skills can be acquired in much less time, certainly
| if you don't start from scratch. E.g., learning a 2nd programming
| language takes much less time than the 1st.
|
| * I've been switching jobs all my life; on average after about 5
| years. 43 isn't very old to switch, IMO.
|
| * Think about what is important to you: Money? Stability? Job
| satisfaction? Can you find a new job that gives you what you want
| and need?
| michaelcao wrote:
| He means no shortcuts for master anything. It takes time, 2000
| or 3000 hours or any numbers. People tends to find a shortcut
| for anything, fox example, buying crypto to get rich quick. I
| agree that 10000 hours rule is a myth.
| itsoktocry wrote:
| > _The 10000 hour rule is nonsense_
|
| You should probably read a bit about the "rule" before calling
| it nonsense.
|
| It's vague, flexible, and refers to attaining mastery in some
| skill. Nowhere is it implied you'll be a world champion chess
| player after 10,000 hours.
|
| It says practice will make you better at something. That's hard
| to dismiss.
| danesparza wrote:
| Agreed. Bobby Fisher got there in less than 10 years.
|
| https://problogservice.com/2012/03/15/what-malcolm-
| gladwell-...
|
| _The problem is, Gladwell never said you needed 10,000 hours
| to be an expert, you need 10,000 hours to be a phenom. To be
| so freakishly awesome, to be such a standout among your
| peers, that sometimes your first name is enough to tell
| people who you are: Peyton. Tiger. Venus. Kobe. Oprah.
|
| But in the meantime, here's what Malcolm Gladwell said about
| the 10,000 hour rule and being an outlier:
|
| "In fact, by the age of twenty, the elite performers
| (violinists) had each totaled ten thousand hours of
| practice." -- p. 38
|
| "The emerging picture from such studies is that ten thousand
| hours of practice is required to achieve the level of mastery
| associated with being a world-class expert--in anything,"
| writes the neurologist Daniel Levitin. -- p. 40
|
| "To become a chess grandmaster also seems to take about ten
| years. (Only the legendary Bobby Fisher got to that elite
| level in less than that amount of time: it took him nine
| years.) And what's ten years? Well, it's roughly how long it
| takes to put in ten thousand hours of hard practice. Ten
| thousand hours is the magic number of greatness." -- p. 41_
| sophacles wrote:
| I need 500g of flour to make bread. That doesn't mean I can
| make bread with just 500g of flour.
|
| You are trying to say that someone claiming 500g being
| necessary to making bread is hogwash because it doesn't
| also talk about the salt and water (etc).
| bmacho wrote:
| Why is everyone so pessimistic? I believe that if you,
| sophacles, had the time, the determination, the money for
| 10 000 hours of tutoring of a grandmaster, and the
| mental/emotional/physical okay-being for the time, you
| could reach a grandmaster level in chess in 10 000 hours.
| Same for many many areas. (Polgar tried it, for a time
| his 3 daughters were the 3 best woman chess players, but
| this doesn't really count since they started very young.)
| danesparza wrote:
| I didn't mention any baking concepts.
|
| I quoted Malcolm Gladwell -- who was the originator of
| the "10,000 hours" rule (remark?) in popular culture.
| sophacles wrote:
| Let me spell out the analogy:
|
| Gladwell says you need practice 10,000 hours. In my
| analogy of the situation, I claim I need 500g of flour.
|
| You complain that there may be other things needed in
| addition to practice therefore the need for practice is
| bullshit. This is analogized by "you" saying that the
| need for other ingredients in bread somehow invalidates
| that the flour is needed.
|
| The point I'm trying to make is this: Stating that
| something is necessary but not sufficient, does not
| invalidate claims about what is necessary. In the quotes,
| I saw no claim that _only_ 10k hours of practice was
| required, just that they were necessary.
| criddell wrote:
| Don't get hung up on the number. I've always taken
| Gladwell's writing to mean lots of deliberate practice
| (on the order of a decade) is necessary, but maybe not
| sufficient, to master something difficult.
| nordsieck wrote:
| > You could practice 10,000 hours on the violin or playing
| chess without reaching the lofty heights of Hahn or Magnusson.
|
| Without commenting on whether the 10k rule was reasonable,
| you're shifting goalposts. It was never the claim that it only
| took 10k hours to be the best in the world.
| matt_s wrote:
| > The 10000 hour rule is nonsense
|
| Even if there is some merit to the "rule", the intent behind it
| is you'll master something in that amount of time. You can
| become good at something with far less time. You just need to
| be good to earn a living. I think of all the jobs I've worked
| and the slackers and incompetence I've seen. I think with some
| education about a job and decent intelligence most people can
| put in the effort, learn on the job and become good - if they
| want to.
|
| 10k hours is roughly 5 working years of experience with no
| nights+weekends extra time so if OP switches careers now, they
| could be mastering something by the time they're 48. I've seen
| people switch careers into software, and go from junior to mid
| level up to senior in that time.
|
| Do it.
| diarrhea wrote:
| I believe in talent to a limited degree. It governs the floor,
| ceiling and learning curve's slope. Kind of like the parameters
| to a sigmoid function. Magnus Carlsen's very first chess match
| was likely much better than most other people's/kids', he
| learned at a breakneck pace and obviously, possesses a high
| skill ceiling.
|
| However, there is a huge and dynamic middle ground that can be
| conquered by anyone through nothing but work and dedication.
| ghaff wrote:
| It also depends what you mean by "switching jobs." I've had
| three distinctly different jobs/careers over the past 30 years
| or so (with some moving around within those careers). However,
| they were all sufficiently adjacent that there was quite a bit
| of knowledge transfer and the transitions were very logical as
| a result. (And, in fact, in all cases I was hired by someone I
| knew from the prior job.)
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| 10,000 hours of chess as a kid is different to 10,000 as an
| adult.
| someweirdperson wrote:
| 10k hours as an adult in violin is not the same as 10k hours
| at chess.
|
| Nor is the same at a young age, but possibly differenly not
| the same.
| sure_about_that wrote:
| Lutger wrote:
| Mastering a skill doesn't imply being in the top 10 or even
| 100. It simply means acquiring expertise to a point of
| diminishing returns and being recognized by your peers as very
| skilled. It's perfectly possible to become really good at chess
| and at the violin after a lot of practice. Good enough to
| impress a beginner.
|
| Learning a second programming language isn't really learning a
| new skill, it's maybe more like learning a new genre of music
| if you already play the violin well, or learning how to play
| speed chess once you're already a master.
| rossdavidh wrote:
| I read (and liked) Gladwell's book, but the point of it was
| really just that no matter what your natural talent for
| something, it takes the opportunity to do a lot of focused
| practice to become good at it. This is to debunk the idea that
| the wealthy are all members of a meritocracy; even if they do
| have some talent at whatever they are doing, they were lucky
| enough to get born into circumstances such that they were allowed
| to do whatever-it-was for long enough to become expert.
|
| Also, just because you're not great at something initially,
| doesn't mean you cannot become great, because it takes many
| thousands of hours of practice to become great.
|
| No doubt the 10k rule varies according to field, because some
| fields are new, and no one has 10k hours yet. There are
| programmers with 10k hours, but most of the professionals in the
| field do not have 10k hours yet, for example. The definition of
| "great" (and therefore the # of hours required) is relative to
| others in that field.
|
| I switched into programming in my 30's, when many programmers
| start to rotate out of it because they believe they are too old.
| I probably am not as good at certain things as others, but I also
| bring experience from previous careers to improve the odds that I
| am programming the right thing in the first place.
|
| If you switch careers, it will take time to become good at the
| new one, and you (and your finances) need to be able to
| accommodate that. But it definitely happens.
| philipswood wrote:
| Check out the 100h rule.
|
| https://www.codingvc.com/p/the-100-hour-rule
|
| A lot of professionals are not in the 10,000h range and a few
| 100h is more achievable.
| SevenNation wrote:
| Do you know the difference between an expert and a non-expert? An
| expert knows more than you about something.
|
| Well, it's not quite that simple of course. But the point stands.
| You can do a lot of good well before that 10,000 hour mark. Think
| about dedicating just 1 hour to something. How much more will you
| know about it than your peers?
|
| I think it's a mistake to divide the world into pre-10,000 hours
| and post-10,000 hours. Mastery does take time. But you can do a
| lot for yourself by first becoming more knowledgeable and then
| becoming more practiced at something. You don't need to be a
| master before your life improves noticeably.
|
| > Any advice?
|
| What were you put on this planet to do? If you've already done
| it, then great. No need to change course. If not and it doesn't
| sit right, why wouldn't you change course? Time is always
| "running out" and it won't be any better at 53.
| piscatorialvet wrote:
| huimang wrote:
| Were you an expert in your current field right at the start? Or
| did you learn things over time?
|
| You can always change things up. Just do it.
| pizza234 wrote:
| Other posters have commented about the validity of the 10k hours
| rule.
|
| I actually think even more radically - career, or success in
| general, is not necessarily a matter of mastery, and thinking in
| terms of technical skills, may lead to failure, because the
| requirements for success may be other ones.
|
| In particular, successfully founding a company may require many
| qualities (and acts) that have nothing to do with technical
| skills, rather, with human ones.
|
| I'm not familiar with your boss, but it's possible that they just
| found a market need, and dedicated themselves to solving it, even
| with mediocre skills, but with the right human skillset (creative
| ideas, understanding of the market, orientation to get things
| done, effectively communicating, and a myriad of other things).
|
| There are certain fields where technical accomplishments is the
| main drive (Doom ;)), but in such cases, the answer whether
| that's possible or not is very obvious.
|
| I stress: it may seem paradoxical, but a strictly technical
| vision _can_ be counterproductive even in a technical field.
| alexfromapex wrote:
| Just do it. I'm planning to switch jobs from Software Engineer to
| General Contractor, just working on saving up capital for heavy
| equipment and materials. I took a great training course and now
| just have to pass the licensing exam. If your passion changes,
| just change fields, life is short.
| mr-wendel wrote:
| I think this comment gets to the essence better than anything
| else: passion.
|
| Something is going to need to motivate you through the process
| of learning, failing, and growing in a new field. If your
| motivation is primarily based in getting away from what you are
| doing now then I suspect you have a difficult road ahead
| regardless of whether you change or not.
|
| But if you have some kind of passion about what you'd like to
| be doing instead then you've got the most valuable compass and
| sail you can ask for.
| edmcnulty101 wrote:
| This is cool. In construction? Do you plan on doing
| residential, industrial, or commercial? Do you have previous
| experience?I would love to build physical things for a living.
| alexfromapex wrote:
| Yeah going to do some even smaller projects first like
| retaining walls and building driveways. There are different
| license levels and they require different levels of capital.
| The lowest level mainly lets you build residential and has a
| limit on the number of stories for buildings and the full
| price of the project. One cool thing I've learned so far is
| how complex concrete is. Eventually will ramp up to
| commercial after things are running smoothly but the first
| thing I'm learning how to run a small business and it's new
| and exciting just doing that stuff.
| [deleted]
| spoonjim wrote:
| The 10,000 hour "rule" is complete bullshit. I, for example, was
| a prodigy at art and a complete dunce at music. I got better at
| drawing much faster than my peers but I was more interested in
| music, where I simply could not figure out anything. Eventually
| that was frustrating and I gave up music but I can imagine that I
| would have been a world-class talent with 10,000 hours of drawing
| (I went into computer programming instead where I am just mildly
| above average) and 10,000 hours of music wouldn't have done
| anything for me.
| Bakary wrote:
| Given Stable Diffusion maybe you made the right choice!
| spoonjim wrote:
| I honestly just didn't like drawing.
| astroalex wrote:
| An anecdote: my mother dropped out of law school when she was
| younger. She finally went back to law school in her 50's,
| graduated, and is now a practicing lawyer in a field she is
| passionate about.
|
| Taking the time to go to law school was definitely a risk and a
| cost. It definitely was not easy for her. But it's absolutely
| possible, probably more so than most people believe for
| themselves.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| If you're healthy and are willing to take the risk the answer is
| yes. Everything else is in your head. When I worked in China I
| talked to people who grew up during the Cultural Revolution and
| lost everything, then lost everything again during the turbulent
| years of the 80s and 90s, and rebuilt their life entirely again.
| They always used to say that when you're younger than 50 you can
| just start over and laughed at younger workers who were anxious
| in their 20s or 30s.
|
| In many places people have started over four or five times, not
| once. And by the way you don't need 10k hours or be a master-
| anything to have a viable career in a field, just enough
| experience to get a foot in the door.
| elforce002 wrote:
| Thanks for sharing. Loosing everything looks daunting but you
| are alive. Get up and keep moving forward.
| ourmandave wrote:
| The youtuber Veritasium recently did a video on the 10,000 hour
| expert.
|
| Summary: you need 4 things to become an expert.
|
| From comment with timestamps:
|
| 5:00 Repeated attempts with feedback. 6:47 Valid environment.
| 11:23 Timely feedback. 13:50 Don't get to comfortable.
|
| Video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eW6Eagr9XA
|
| Comment link:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eW6Eagr9XA&lc=UgwrcQiQhReOd...
| Zensynthium wrote:
| Derek from Veritasium had a pretty good video on becoming an
| expert in anything and I didn't see age as a blocking factor. I'd
| say go for it! Also check out the video here, it's worth a watch
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eW6Eagr9XA
| iainctduncan wrote:
| The Gladwell book is so bad it's laughable. It's a gross
| misrepresentation of the work of Anders Ericsson, with completely
| unfounded extrapolations. So bad it prompted Ericsson to get a
| non-academic writer to work with him to write his own popular
| science version of his work, which is titled "Peak". Outliers is
| the worst example I know of of popular authors bending facts to
| make a narrative they want to tell.
|
| In a nutshell, Ericsson never said "10k hours will make you world
| class" or "it takes 10k hours for mastery". He said (BIG
| simplifying paraphrase here) "the most notable difference we saw
| in elite performers between sub-elites and elites was practice,
| with most elites having achieved roughly 10k hours, or 10 years
| of 3 hours a day". He also limited this to PRACTICE, a part
| Gladwell totally missed. (ie the Beatles example is complete
| bullshit, gigs are not practice). He never said it was either
| necessary (lots of music prodigies are world class in way less)
| or sufficient (literally millions of people do 10k hours and get
| just decent).
|
| So... throw that book in the garbage and make your decision on
| other criteria. There are many, many good books on learning and
| performance, but not by popular hacks like Gladwell. Anecdotally,
| I know lots of people who started new pursuits (and got very
| good), or successfully switched careers or started new businesses
| in their 40s.
|
| It's really not about age, it's about all the parameters that are
| typically associated with age. As in, by the time people hit
| their 40's, most people can no longer carve out the time to
| consistently spend time learning a new thing, and are way out of
| practice at learning. _Most_ , not all. I know lots of
| professional musicians, for example, who took up some other hobby
| late in life and got very very good, because their entire life
| has been constructed around leaving time for effective learning,
| and they are experts at learning something on their own. If you
| can rearrange life to enable you to learn effectively (or found a
| company, or whatever), 43 is a great age.
| Jayakumark wrote:
| Just curious to know about the books that are you referencing
| here for learning and performance.
| michaelcao wrote:
| I like your opinion. I founded a startup at 40 as a part time
| job and it was a correct decision during covid19 crisis. My
| company is quite successful. It takes about 3000 hours to be
| sustainable. 10000 hours is an overrated term
| sam1r wrote:
| That's awesome! I'd love to hear more about this.
| daveevad wrote:
| My favorite Gladwell book to rip on is Blink. It is 296 pages
| long and the main point was one only needs a few moments to
| understand complicated things.
| michaelcao wrote:
| I haven't read the Blink yet. I will try to read it in the
| near future. Thanks for mentioning it.
| daveevad wrote:
| If you finish it, you should probably read it again. ;)
| prepend wrote:
| I think you should try to not read it as it's bogus.
|
| Picking some examples where people made split second
| decisions that are correct is so silly it's weird that the
| book even exists much less is a bestseller. It's basic
| premise is that people make split second decisions but
| never goes into whether these are correct or incorrect.
|
| So it boils down to "sometimes people choose right" as it
| that was somehow novel or useful.
|
| He's a fun storyteller but dangerous when people believe
| and make decisions based on his writings.
| ghaff wrote:
| I remember Tipping Point as being mostly OK. But it
| really triggered Gladwell's schtick of weaving a well-
| written entertaining narrative whether or not it's really
| supported by some cherry-picked anecdotes.
| swamp40 wrote:
| I suspect he was joking...
| dexterdog wrote:
| I think he was making the opposite recommendation.
| teachrdan wrote:
| While I'm a huge Gladwell critic, I enjoyed that book quite a
| bit. But I disagree with your main point. I'd summarize it's
| conclusions as:
|
| 1. People make decisions very quickly -- like often in under
| a second.
|
| 2. These decisions are very powerful. 2a. Powerful in terms
| of accurately deducing things, and/or 2b. Powerfully
| emotional in how it sways you (not always in good ways!)
|
| 3. You can have some success in retraining your fast decision
| making.
|
| This may seem slight, but I think these three main points are
| not necessarily obvious and are probably true. I've taken
| advantage of these by, for example, researching different
| mobile phones a bunch but consciously not making a decision
| until I walked into the store and I had a powerful interest
| in one of them on the shelf. That turned out to be the right
| answer for me.
| robswc wrote:
| I have no opinion on Gladwell, as I haven't read any of his
| books, but I swear those 3 things seem to be covered in
| almost every "self-help" book I've read. I don't want to
| blame the authors either... but it seems like everyone is
| getting their water from the same well (thinking fast and
| slow?).
|
| I'm always down to read an authors interpretation or
| experience with the concepts... but I'd be lying if I said
| I haven't found it harder and harder to push through.
|
| You're totally on point though. A lot of things are simple
| and obvious but only when noticed or in hindsight.
| daveevad wrote:
| I enjoyed The Tipping Point and was excited to read Blink
| but did not enjoy it nearly from the beginning. It was
| simply too much cognitive dissonance for me to continue
| when your point 2a kept being explained.
|
| Admittedly I did not finish the book so point 3 does seem
| valuable to me in a way I probably under-appreciated.
| tinco wrote:
| There is a much better lesson to take from practice theory, and
| that's the skill curve. You might see it and think "oh it takes
| 10,000 hours to become a master". But it only takes 10 hours of
| practice to become better at something than literally almost
| everyone at any task. And in 100 hours of practice you would be
| considered a worthy peer in almost any community. 1000 hours
| will make you a respected professional in any trade.
|
| You can apply it to any life skill. You could learn a new
| musical instrument every 6 months, you could be a plumber, a
| carpenter, an electrician. You could make learn a new way of
| fabricating things. Any sport, any dance. I applied it as a
| programmer, dabbling in compilers, operating systems, machine
| learning systems, web systems, games, various languages and
| paradigms. Now as the CTO in a small company my "expertise" in
| all of these fields makes me able to talk along with every
| team, no matter what they're working on.
|
| You could be good enough in anything to impress a friend by
| practicing anything for 3 months. Not saying it's easy, real
| practice hurts your brain, not every day job leaves you with
| enough brain juice at the end of the day. But maybe you could
| practice in the morning.
|
| When I was in college I had been playing guitar on and off for
| maybe 10 years. I didn't like practicing much and was mostly
| just playing the same bits and riffs for fun. There was a
| youtube hype around a guy called Andy McKee who played
| technically challenging pieces with a really cool vibe. I
| didn't even attempt it, considering it above my skill level. My
| housemate who hadn't touched a guitar in all his life, bought a
| $30 guitar and practiced for 3 months. By the end he could play
| the full song good enough for it to actually sound good and
| impress basically anyone. I'm pretty sure he could make some
| money playing on a street corner just playing that 1 song over
| and over again.
|
| edit: the bootcamp I used to teach at trains junior developers
| from scratch in about 500 hours. If you pair them with a good
| mentor, employing them for about 500 hours more, and you'll
| have perfectly good software developers capable of maintaining
| and extending any existing product you have in your portfolio.
| iainctduncan wrote:
| this is on the money. How good you need to be to do a job for
| a career - if that career is not performing in some insanely
| competitive field like sports or music - is so, so, so much
| lower than what we are talking about when discussing the
| practice history of elite performers.
|
| If you learn to practice correctly, and get a good teacher,
| you will be _amazing_ to most people in 2000 hours - 3 years
| of consistent two hours a day of good practice produces a
| shit ton of expertise.
| scifibestfi wrote:
| > (ie the Beatles example is complete bullshit, gigs are not
| practice)
|
| Why doesn't that count as practice?
| ghaff wrote:
| Because you're doing the same thing over and over and don't
| have a lot of latitude to experiment.
|
| Mind you, there can be some value in repetition starting out
| especially if you make regular minor adjustments. But for
| someone already at a high skill level, just doing the same
| old activity probably won't help their skills much.
| myheadasplode wrote:
| Playing as a dance/cover band as they did (compared to,
| say, classical music), they had plenty of space to
| experiment. The critical aspect that's different from
| practicing with your band in a rehearsal space vs on stage
| is that you get to see how an audience actually responds to
| what you're doing, which is the whole point of the game.
| Every audience is different. A musician who's played 100
| sets of songs alone in a room will have nowhere near the
| same level of insight as a musician who's played the same
| number of shows for an audience.
|
| As an instrumentalist, I can choose to play my part ahead
| of the beat, behind the beat, right on time, I can choose
| to embellish my part or play it as written, I can improvise
| a solo vs play something pre-planned, I can subtly vary the
| intensity of my playing, all while my bandmates are
| tweaking their performance in real time, too. There's also
| the telepathy you tend to develop with your bandmates when
| you're unable to stop a show and yell about mistakes or
| forgotten parts :)
| huimang wrote:
| Performances aren't practice. Practice is sitting down and
| working on what needs development, and doing self-
| introspection. Performances are where all of those get put
| together for an audience.
| [deleted]
| thebricksta wrote:
| I studied a number of books in that field last year, and much
| of this entire thread is missing some key points.
|
| The learning psychology field often differentiates practice
| from deliberate practice, where practice is just about
| anything and deliberate practice is focused learning.
|
| In deliberate practice, you have to work at near your skill
| level, you need to apply proven learning methods, it should
| take maximal effort, you need a feedback mechanism to course
| correct, etc. A great deal of focus goes into creating
| effective mental models and intentionally removing
| ineffective mental models. It requires good coaching. As you
| progress in expertise, your practice should involve more
| risks and failures. (And there's still much more to be said
| here)
|
| Gigging and noodling aren't going to make for efficient
| practice as it likely won't be full concentration, won't
| involve feedback, won't involve challenging material at your
| skill level, etc.
|
| Also, you can spend 10,000 hours jamming alone in your
| bedroom on same set of guitar tabs and make shockingly
| progress compared to someone who spends just a few hundred
| hours intensely studying music books with a metronome and
| tape recorder.
| [deleted]
| adamgordonbell wrote:
| Here's Gladwell himself: There is a lot of
| confusion about the 10,000 rule that I talk about in Outliers.
| Practice isn't a SUFFICIENT condition for success. I could play
| chess for 100 years and I'll never be a grandmaster. The point
| is simply that natural ability requires a huge investment of
| time in order to be made manifest. Unfortunately, sometimes
| complex ideas get oversimplified in translation.
|
| I don't get why people love to hate on him so much. He was just
| popularizing the idea that talent takes effort and is not
| predominantly innate. ( But I do agree the Beatles example is
| BS and contrary to the DP principles )
| iainctduncan wrote:
| Ah but this is him defending himself _after the fact_. The
| book most definitely does create the "sufficient"
| impression, and deliberately, because it's such a nice story.
| This is attested to by the takeaways most people have from
| it. If they got the wrong impression, either he wrote it
| wrong or he's a shit writer - or both. Now he back pedals
| because he got called out on the bs.
|
| Don't get me wrong, he's a very good _story teller_. But he
| 's a complete crap "popular science" writer
| Grustaf wrote:
| The guy is a walking TED talk. I don't hate him, but he's
| supremely annoying in his smug triteness.
| [deleted]
| MrsPeaches wrote:
| > He never said it was either necessary (lots of music
| prodigies are world class in way less)
|
| Gladwell:
|
| "The point is simply that natural ability _requires_ a huge
| investment of time in order to be made manifest " (emphasis
| added)
| iainctduncan wrote:
| But... this is wrong. The vast majority of the time, yes,
| but "requires" is a simplification. The amount of work
| required is massively variable and Gladwell skates right
| over that nuance. Prodigies exist! I've met some, they can
| be really nauseating to the rest of us, lol. There are more
| of them out there than you would think because they are
| often so screwed up in other ways that they don't become
| famous. Talk to anyone who has taught hundreds of music
| students and they can tell you some crazy stories. However,
| prodigies aren't much use if you can't count on them
| showing up to the gig. (Some savants are fortunate enough
| to get the support they need to function professionally,
| but many aren't)
| WheatMillington wrote:
| Have you actually read Outliers? Gladwell was very specific
| about practice, and how deliberate it needs to be. He
| emphasized the way the Beatles used their gig time as practice.
| iainctduncan wrote:
| Yes I have, cover to cover. And it led me on to reading the
| original sources and then getting disgusted with Gladwell's
| shoddy job.
|
| Your example says it all.... gig time as practice is
| something only a non-musician and/or someone who really
| doesn't understand practice would say. He gives air time to
| the idea of deliberate practice and then uses examples that
| show how that he doesn't get it. AT ALL. I can only assume he
| came up with the Beatles example and thought it was such a
| compelling story that he was determined not to let the facts
| get in the way. Ericsson goes over his criteria for what
| deliberate practice is.... and nightly gigs are not it in the
| least!
|
| Read Ericsson and I'll be you will get disillusioned as did
| I.
| defrost wrote:
| You can switch careers many times and at any age , you can even
| take up a new job without making a career out of it, simply to
| experience the work and to either get some insight (if, say,
| you're designing an app) or to help out some people who are short
| handed.
|
| That said, there are really only two criteria for sliding into a
| new job area:
|
| * people that will actually hire you | allow you to work along
| side them,
|
| * your ability to not be a dead weight and to assist in at least
| the TA | fetching food and drink | cleaning away tools and cables
| | etc dogsbody roles.
|
| It takes a long time to master many trades, it takes far less
| time to take part at the lowest levels and to start learning.
|
| My background is folk that take pride in being jack of all trades
| master of none, I've specialised a little and can count myself
| jack of many trades, 'master' of a few.
| ludwigvan wrote:
| You sure can, but depends on people you need to support, and some
| luck.
|
| As to the rule, a few observations:
|
| - you don't need to become an expert to be in a certain career. -
| Pareto rule applies. You can learn 80% of the job in 20% of the
| time. After that, it is diminishing returns, in which case you
| can be average and have a career.
| JDoubleA wrote:
| Absolutely can switch careers, I did it and was one of the best
| decisions I made. For me was doing something I've also wanted to
| do with a Company whose core values matches my own.
| anemoiac wrote:
| Malcolm Gladwell oversimplifies things. There's nothing magical
| about spending 10,000 hours practicing a skill, but you'll
| obviously get better at anything you spend a lot of time on.
|
| To answer your question: it depends on your specific context. At
| 43, you could _theoretically_ still gain the required
| qualifications for most careers and work for ~ 20 years (ex. you
| 'd be 67/68 after 4 years spent earning a new degree + 20 years
| working). The more relevant consideration is _will you actually
| be able to do that as a working 43-year-old with normal
| responsibilities_?
|
| Another question you seem to allude to is "will ageism be a
| limiting factor?" That answer is also context-dependent. At a lot
| of trendy companies mentioned here on HN, I'd suspect that it
| would be. That said, those companies are only a fraction of the
| job market and I'm not sure more "boring" companies would be as
| concerned with age as with your skills. Outside of tech and some
| competitive (+ conservative) industries like finance or
| consulting, I don't think it would be as big of a deal.
| noufalibrahim wrote:
| There's an obvious elephant in the room here which is not
| discussed. 10k hours might let you master something (and even
| that claim is questionable like others have mentioned) but why do
| you need to be a "master" to switch careers?
|
| Being better at (say) web development than all the other people
| in your company that have other skills immediately makes you
| valuable in a specific way and starts your career shift. You can
| build up on that over the years.
|
| There are ways to reconfigure your life other than by
| "Switching". More gradual ways to ease into another career exist
| and can be worthwhile. Everything comes with a cost though so
| make sure you're willing to pay it.
| RHSman2 wrote:
| Theoretically I think that it's 10k for one thing then 10k minus
| all the the amazing things that you learnt in your first 10k
| crispyambulance wrote:
| Whether you can successfully switch career is up to you and how
| you define "career".
|
| I think the most underestimated "hard part" of mastering
| something new is that the path to mastery often looks like one
| failure after another. A long string of incompetence that makes
| one appear like a cargo-culting dilettante who keeps trying even
| as it appears they aren't getting anywhere. This is hard for
| folks to take, especially later in their careers. One has to have
| a thick skin to get through it.
| Yizahi wrote:
| A short video regarding "10000 hours" and learning in general -
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eW6Eagr9XA
| MilStdJunkie wrote:
| The 10k hour rule has been debunked many, many times.
|
| I don't think Gladwell is intentionally a charlatan, but he's
| astonishingly sentimental given his choice of subjects, and
| notably, was never a practicing scientist.
|
| At worst he's a fluffy-haired priest to the rentier class, paid
| to soothe the intellects of Manhattan financialist pirates in the
| same way William Sumner once stroked the egos of Carnegies and
| Rockefellers.
| samatman wrote:
| The vaunted 10,000 hours are necessary to become globally
| competitive at some rivalrous activity where others are striving
| to be the best.
|
| It's woefully insufficient for such success, one also needs
| 'talent', which is a fuzzy but real measure of the inherent
| ability one has.
|
| So it's probably too late for golf and concert piano, these might
| make great hobbies, but you won't be playing the Masters or
| Carnegie Hall. Very likely, it wouldn't have mattered when you
| started, or how hard you worked, for those goals. Maybe you've
| got what it takes, but most people don't, so it's accordingly
| unlikely.
|
| That leaves almost everything else. If you're in good health,
| have the hustle and drive, why not? 43 is about median for
| successful new business founders, YN demographics
| notwithstanding.
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| In my admittedly still short life, I have started to notice
| something: you can broadly divide the world into two groups -
| those who do things and those who keep wondering if they should
| have done things.
|
| So for what's worth, here is my advice to you: drop Gladwell and
| self-help books, if you want to and can switch to a new job, do
| it. Should it work or fail, you will have experienced trying. If
| you don't feel like it or find yourself unable to because banks
| won't loan to you, you can't be hired or it's finally not
| financially viable, don't do it and rest in peace knowing it was
| your decision/you tried.
|
| You don't need an external reason like being too old or outside
| validation, you are old enough to make your own choice.
| toss1 wrote:
| YES!!
|
| If you have a deep interest and anything resembling the skills
| required, go for it. Perseverance is the most important
| characteristic.
|
| That said, Gladwell is completely FOS about the 10,000 hours --
| it bears repeating completely Full Of Sh*t. Not only is
| "mastery" ill-defined, but so is what counts as "practice", and
| it completely ignores that some people will after 10K hours
| fail to get to the top, and others can get to the top of other
| fields in less than 1000 hours (depending on how it is
| counted).
|
| And, while perseverance is key, dumb perseverance is not -- how
| you learn counts for a LOT.
|
| The best key I've found is to seek out people at the top of the
| field and learn from them. Either direct in classes if
| possible, or from their books. You will eventually need to
| learn the best ways of thinking about whatever the field is,
| and it is better to learn the best way at the outset, than
| relearning it 5 times on the way up. The simplified approach at
| the outset may be initially rewarding, but it is a waste of
| time.
|
| Also be sure to ask all the 'dumb' questions about
| discrepancies or things that don't add up, or edge cases.
| Sometimes, those reveal the most essential elements that you
| need to progress. As an example of how this can work in far-
| flung fields of endeavor, when I was alpine ski racing, at one
| pre-season camp, I was flailing, skiing worse than the previous
| year, trying with all my might to implement what the coach was
| saying, but clearly not understanding. Fortunately, he was
| willing to put up with me as I asked in the evening what was
| going on, and we argued for hours, with me finally asking
| "where does that force come from?", and we looked a bit deeper
| and figured out a subtle bit of how the initiation of the term
| was a bit different than he described. That answer was the key,
| and literally from the first run the next day, I improved
| rapidly. In a completely different field, I went to a C++
| conference class series with Bjarne Stroustrup, and in an
| after-session question, I asked what I thought might be a dumb
| question, but went ahead anyway, "was I spending too much time
| on naming conventions on my projects?", because I was worried
| that I was wasting time. I got a wonderfully detailed and
| concise answer that was basically "NO, it is worth all that up
| front-investment, especially for the way it helps you think
| about the structure ahead of time.".
|
| So, persevere, dig and ask those peculiar questions (obviously,
| not the 'dumb' ones that can be easily answered by looking it
| up, but the 'dumb' ones that seem like they ought to be
| obvious, but aren't explicit.).
|
| Go for it, and I wish you good fortune in your new endeavor.
| It'll probably take longer than you like, but it's likely worth
| it.
| just_boost_it wrote:
| Gladwell's english was very approachable, so outliers was an
| easy and enjoyable book to read. I even believed it the first
| time I read it. Once I read his later stuff though, I noticed
| a couple of things that didn't quite add up for me, and that
| sort of shone a light for me on the pattern he was using. I
| wouldn't put any more weight on his work now than I would on
| a random blog from the depths of the internet.
| michaelcao wrote:
| He's a genius writer and we should be aware of that when
| reading his books. He could influence us. I think that
| 10000 hours means that long-term. No shortcut for master
| anything.
| dexterdog wrote:
| I would not call him a genius writer by any stretch. The
| sheer number of people who consider him a complete fraud
| part of that reason. The rest is that I've seen enough of
| his material that didn't add up for me.
| andrew_ wrote:
| The older I get the more I recognize that most of the people
| I've encountered, in one way or another, have a great lack of
| confidence and courage.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| Meh. You can be as confident as you like, if people won't
| take on staff as "juniors" who are older, then the whole
| process of retraining - wrt career change - has been a waste
| of time.
|
| I've never been involved in corporate HR, I'd want advice.
| Similarly, if I was doing a bungee jump for the first time
| I'd ask someone to check my harness ... (to spell it out, you
| seem to be berating someone for doing a reality check, as if
| reality [of the jobs market] were open to someone to define
| individually; ignorance and confidence can be easily
| confused)
| ghost-towels wrote:
| This is pretty much where I'm at. I'm mid 40s and been
| working in the marine industry for almost 30 years (yes I
| started that young). I'm going for a career change but I
| have zero experience in a corporate/modern office setting.
| I am also self taught. It will be a huge change, and I'm
| concerned that I may not be hireable. All that being said
| I'm still going for it as I'd like the rest of my working
| days actually helping society instead of old white dudes
| and their boats haha. I'm looking into security/osint.
| happyopossum wrote:
| > I'm looking into security/osint.
|
| If you can breathe, spell cybersecurity, and have decent
| grooming standards, you can get hired in security. The
| 3rd is technically optional...
|
| Get training, then take a crappy SOC level 1 analyst job
| to get exposure and experience - the hiring standards
| aren't a lot higher than your average call center at a
| lot of them, as we have a ~1.5M headcount gap in the
| industry. You will burn out or move up in 9-12 months
| just like all the other L1s, but you will either figure
| out it's not for you or you'll be able to get a foot on
| the next rung of the ladder.
| Temporarily21 wrote:
| In a similar boat, only I am 31. So it's been 10 years at
| sea.
| influx wrote:
| Security/osint is very laid back. Folks coming from a
| different career usually have some interesting
| perspectives on problem solving that can be really
| useful. Just wanted to say, keep going, if I was a hiring
| manager and you showed technical chops, and a willingness
| to learn, be wrong, and correct yourself, I would
| completely hire you.
| andrew_ wrote:
| my advice: look for work with startups that have under 20
| on staff. you'll avoid corporate nonsense (more often
| than not with startups of that size), and it's likely
| they'll be remote so the only "modern office setting"
| things you'll have to pick up and master are: not being a
| jerk, communicating effectively asynchronously, and video
| call etiquette. With companies that size, and there are
| many out there, they'll likely be more than happy to help
| you figure out the remote lifestyle.
|
| Be bold
| dinaufilter wrote:
| Agreed. Without courage there's not much you can do.
|
| Who's going to practice something for 10,000 hours? One who
| is strongly motivated to do so. Who's going to do well in
| school exams? One who is strongly motivated to do so (e.g. to
| please his parents)
|
| Being strongly motivated is about following your own bent.
| Which takes courage. If you lack courage you won't even be
| able to perceive what that bent is. But if you have courage
| then you'll make your mind up and get stuck in.
| michaelcao wrote:
| Good advice. Thanks. I don't read self-help books. I believe in
| learning by practice
| tomthumb wrote:
| Words of wisdom! I have tweeted your first paragraph. Hope you
| don't mind..
| WheelsAtLarge wrote:
| Everywhere, no matter education, wealth or resources in
| general. DOers will always come out ahead. Not do it once but
| acting on your ideas regularly. Yes, some ideas will go wrong
| but at least you know the out come. DOers are those we read
| about all the time. Sometimes they are great other times they
| are not but at least they did something to find out. You never
| hear about those that did nothing. Maybe, we read their name in
| a grave stone.
| jrm4 wrote:
| 100%.
|
| There are so many things that you can read or theorize about
| for years, in depth -- that end up still being very different
| once you actually do them. Just gotta try stuff.
| overgrownzygote wrote:
| Over-analyzing has always been a huge struggle of mine, and
| your comment reminded me of a few times in my life where
| actually doing things taught me something important:
|
| 1. I thought I wanted to be a lawyer through most of college.
| I took tons of law-related courses, did a few internships,
| and then realized I strongly disliked _actually doing it_
| once I got my first job in the field. Thankfully, I figured
| it out before going to law school.
|
| 2. I studied abroad in Kenya basically on a whim. I realized
| my penultimate semester of college that I'd managed to get
| all my graduation requirements done a semester early and
| somehow not noticed, and decided I'd take the last semester
| to have a little adventure. It turned out to be one of the
| best things I've ever done.
|
| 3. At the start of lockdown in 2020, I took CS50 basically
| because I was bored and a friend was doing it. I had never
| even considered studying CS before that point, and now here I
| am getting my ducks in a row to do an OSU post-bacc.
|
| I suppose the throughline here is that life is full of
| unknown unknowns, and unknown unknowns, by definition, aren't
| something you can think about and factor into your decision-
| making process. Just like you said -- sometimes you just
| gotta try stuff.
| jrm4 wrote:
| Weird and interesting parallels: I quite enjoyed law
| school, did a few internships and practiced for a few years
| before mostly realizing the same thing, and still I have no
| regrets because things turned out well.
|
| I took CS50 when it was probably very different (Brian
| Kernighan, the creator of C, teaching C)
|
| Roughly, I ended up as a Chair of a Masters in IT program.
| Not doing that part anymore, but still a full time non-
| tenure teaching professor. (What _technically,_ as in
| according to the rules of academia, qualifies me for all
| this, is the law degree. Weird. I 'll take it!
| hesdeadjim wrote:
| Agree 100%. Either do it or dont't, otherwise you'll be
| wondering if it's too late to change in another ten years.
|
| Anytime someone asks me how I made the leap to building
| startups the answer is pretty simple: failure doesn't scare me
| that much, I have failed many times, but I've learned and don't
| repeat (most) mistakes. That and I hate anyone telling me what
| to do. YMMV.
| luisfmh wrote:
| Reminds me of the classic yoda quote "do or do not there is
| no try".
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| I agree with some points of it.
|
| However, some people (loosely correlated with age but not
| strictly) have more unavoidable responsibilities than others.
| For a very prosaic example, a person without mortgage and kids,
| all other things equal will have inherently less
| responsibilities than one with mortgage and kids (while both
| still have options in principle).
|
| Empathy is a massive skill I've been learning late in life;
| reluctance to embark on a change may be a factor of internal
| confidence, external advice or validation, _but also_ of
| specific circumstances that those of us being asked opinions
| may or may not fully share, understand, empathize with. I 've
| been learning to ask follow-up questions before answering very
| broad inquiries for thoughts and advice: What's your situation,
| constraints, drive, interest, priorities, goals?
| sillystuff wrote:
| And, I'd add that past experiences greatly impacts tolerance
| to risk. A person who had no money for food and/or was
| homeless as a child, and a person with a financially secure
| family to fall back on so there are no consequences for
| failure are going to have very different risk tolerance.
|
| Even when we are aware of it, fear can control us. And,
| previously poor people know, from experience, what the
| consequences of failure can be.
|
| This was demonstrated on a macro level by the generation that
| grew up in the Great Depression having a high savings rate
| (emergency fund), repairing rather than replacing things as
| long as they could, and being otherwise thrifty almost
| regardless of income.
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| It doesn't significantly change my advice and was actually
| already factored in my answer. Your obligations are your own.
| If you can't afford to change, that answers the question.
|
| It's not about empathy. My point is that inherently there are
| no advices to be had on life choices. Just do what you want
| to do, decide to try or decide you don't want to. There are
| no right and wrong general answers here. A bunch of strangers
| on the internet can't give someone permission or an excuse.
| Silverback_VII wrote:
| >If you can't afford to change, that answers the question.
|
| In my personal experience the greatest challenge is always
| oneself and not external factors. So your advice to drop
| all self-help is wrong in my opinion. There are people who
| made it against all odds and their mindset may crave the
| necesseary pathways in your brain as well.
|
| I would even say that the more the odds are stacked against
| you the more you should try because there are few things as
| impressive.
| Retric wrote:
| I personally suspect more people are harmed by self help
| books etc than helped. Which circles back to the kind of
| advice I would give someone.
|
| It's easy to fall into the trap of assuming reading
| advice is inherently beneficial but it needs to result in
| some net positive behaviors or it's just wasting time,
| money, and mental effort.
| Silverback_VII wrote:
| >more people are harmed by self help books etc than
| helped
|
| It is certainly a business but I assume that most of
| these self-help gurus truly want to help. They are
| promoting different methods(more or less rational) but
| the core message is often very similar and amounts to
| "take action". If all roads lead to Rome you may very
| well get there.
|
| I think by listening to these books you are in fact
| priming your brain to find a way to improve your
| situation.
| Retric wrote:
| My personal observation is people are generally soothing
| their brain into into inactivity rather than priming it
| for something. There is a reason get rich quick scams are
| so effective and so much home exercise equipment sits
| unused, the first step is usually the easiest.
| LouisSayers wrote:
| I suspect a self help guru like Tony Robbins would have
| actually given similar advice to the root commenter - to
| consider your options and then to get off the couch and
| do something.
|
| Lumping all self-help resources into not being useful or
| even harmful doesn't help. There will always be some
| quacks, but there will always be some people with genuine
| insights and the ability to help others understand
| themselves better and move towards their goals.
|
| I've never paid for Tony Robbins material but would say
| its been helpful.
|
| In the OP's case they could use the material to
| understand what is behind wanting the change.
| Understanding their why.
|
| Is it a feeling of significance / love / variety /
| contribution that they're lacking? How could they go
| about getting what's missing? What are their options?
|
| These are the types of things that I get from Tony
| Robbins - almost like a problem solving framework for
| personal problems.
|
| All that being said, do people use self help as a form of
| procrastination? Yes I'd say many do. However I believe
| the people with all the resources that refuse to take
| action are no worse off than they would have been anyway.
|
| As they say, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't
| make it drink.
| Retric wrote:
| I can't tell if that was supposed to be a parody or not.
|
| Which is kind of my point. Some material may be better
| than placebo, but when we are talking about self help as
| an industry you need to consider the impact of everything
| from Scientology to actually lethal practices like
| Breatharianism. The trends within the industry seem to
| focus on what's useful as a business rather than what's
| helpful to it's customers. So yes some people are helped,
| but some people are also financially ruined or even
| killed.
|
| It's not that everyone is trying to scam others, just
| that the same kind of forces that cause clickbait still
| apply and impact what's popular.
| nsxwolf wrote:
| "Sorry son, you're going to have to quit hockey because
| dad is having a midlife crisis and is going to switch
| careers"
|
| Is the problem here the external factor of my son's
| desires? Or is it a problem with myself, putting his
| desires above my own?
| Silverback_VII wrote:
| I think you will be a better role model if you show some
| courage to better your own situation.
| Art9681 wrote:
| The culture of dad having a mid life crisis being frowned
| upon and only seen as a means to provide for the family
| by placing their desires above his own could be why
| soccer son often ends up beng raised by single mom. Dad
| needs help and soccer is the most irrelevant thing in the
| world right now.
| nsxwolf wrote:
| I find the notion incredibly selfish. My family is
| accustomed to their lifestyle. There are certain
| realities that can occur that would require a reduction
| in that lifestyle, but I should not deliberately cause
| them to happen.
|
| Sometimes the right thing to do is to sacrifice your
| dreams for others.
| Art9681 wrote:
| I absolutely agree. All I am pointing out is that
| mentality should be shared by the family and although it
| is honorable to be selfless, it is difficult to help
| others when one's mental state is in shambles. Take care
| of yourself so you can take care of others.
| Art9681 wrote:
| In my experience, being blunt without the sugar coat can have
| a massive change on people as well. Having a mortgage and
| kids can be seen as a reason or excuse not to embark on
| change/risk but it could also be seen as a great reason to do
| so. We decide how we want to look at it. The old saying
| "actions speak louder than words" will outlive any self-help
| new age fad. No one cares what was said or what was thought,
| but what was done.
|
| "I judge myself by my intentions but I judge you by your
| actions".
| iandanforth wrote:
| Obligations become roadblocks due to a failure of imagination
| or ignorance. That sounds pejorative but it describes the
| common case, not the exception. If this applies to you you
| are normal.
|
| To overcome the belief that "my responsibilities are
| preventing me from doing X" you need examples of people who
| have those same responsibilities but are doing X, or some
| X-adjacent thing.
|
| Luckily there are lots of examples through interest forums,
| youtube, etc where people with say a mortgage and two kids
| are still traveling and adventuring. There are people who
| have built support networks so that they can still have time
| to learn languages while caring for an elderly parent,
| autistic child, sick dog, etc.
|
| The viable path to unblocking yourself starts by _asking for
| help_. Ask how others are doing it, get advice, take time off
| specifically to do this initial research. The thing you will
| likely find is that you can 't go straight from A to B. You
| need to build a support network, tie into relevant services,
| improve your financial circumstances, etc. But once you know
| something is possible it can be sufficiently motivating to do
| the upfront work.
| anderspitman wrote:
| > drop Gladwell and self-help books
|
| The advice I like is "read them until they all sound the same".
| j3th9n wrote:
| This.
| balaji1 wrote:
| it is a good point to suggest to take more action. But to make
| significant progress, requires thinking thru the next 5-10
| moves and committing to them and putting in consistent effort
| -- do any books discuss that?
|
| A change shouldn't be just hoping that you "end up at the right
| place at the right time" this time. That is rare.
| david422 wrote:
| > those who do things and those who keep wondering if they
| should have done things.
|
| Yea, I've realized that if I want to do something - some goal -
| if you don't literally _just do it_ then odds of it happening
| become slimmer and slimmer.
| dehrmann wrote:
| To quote my old trainer, "the weight's not gonna lift
| itself."
| cliftonk wrote:
| Sam Walton was about 45 when he started walmart. I've made career
| pivots several times, most recently this year, at age ~39. Just
| do whatever you're interested in... major pivots require the
| willingness and stamina to drink from a firehouse, so keep that
| in mind.
| bruceb wrote:
| Walton's story is the opposite of the OP. Walton was in
| retailing for years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Walton
| jaffee wrote:
| Depends what you want out of life and what career you're moving
| to... you can become pretty competent in a career in tech in just
| a few years and it will likely become lucrative pretty quickly. I
| feel that there will likely be increasing demand for
| programmers/engineers for decades to come. Check out Steve
| Yegge's youtube show for thoughts on this...
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8332hz8c2s&list=PLZfuUWMTtM...
| haspok wrote:
| Two additions to the many comments saying the 10k rule is
| bullsh*t:
|
| 1. To quote one of my favourite coaches: "Practice doesn't make
| you perfect. _Perfect practice_ makes you perfect."
|
| 2. It can save you enormous amounts of time if you find the right
| teacher and teaching resources (eg. books, courses, etc.). But
| how do you know which ones are the right ones - for you?
|
| Also, note that you can certainly reach a fairly high level in
| almost anything you want, but it is much harder to improve on
| that. Unless you have talent or you started learning the thing in
| your childhood, there is definitely a glass ceiling, and it may
| be lower than you think. But then again it may as well be higher,
| and you don't know which until you try it. But then, of course,
| it is too late :)
| jonahbenton wrote:
| There is a distinction in paid work between the skill components
| and the social components. Very often seemingly high skill
| positions turn out to be given to/occupied by someone who only
| has social components- dresses well, is young, demonstrates
| aggressive behaviors, etc.
|
| Though his 10k hours for mastery of skillset thesis has been
| disproven- in the context that there does seem to be "talent"
| that cannot be "practiced"- I believe it myself and have observed
| substantial learning at older ages. However, for yourself I would
| question whether learning the skills is really what is required
| or are expectations and social components the more difficult
| obstacle to overcome.
|
| Good luck.
| [deleted]
| theGeatZhopa wrote:
| The rule is bullshit and the truth at the same time.
|
| Just imagine playing guitar from the beginning until you reach
| 10000 h of physical practice. Just say.. 10h a day ..that would
| mean 3 years of extensive training. You for sure will be a Master
| after that.
|
| Or, just assume everyday 1h of practicing. That's 10000 days..
| something like 30 years..
|
| So this rule doesn't mean you can't be a Master if you didn't
| invest 10k h of practicing, but rather, no matter what you do,if
| you do it for 3 +x years, you sure will be a Master at that.
|
| Bullshit truth!
|
| Go for it, if it's something you can enjoy.
|
| Go for it, if you can use your aforequainted knowledge.
|
| Go for it, if you see some chances for being able to say "it
| enables me to work more for myself and less for one another".
|
| Go for it, if your life needs a complete change.
|
| But keep in mind, that you may need to lower your spendings. If
| you can't lower your spendings for some reason - then, think
| twice about switching careers. It's up to you, whether you can
| cope with possibly lower income.
|
| Keep us informed:)
| matwood wrote:
| > if it's something you can enjoy.
|
| This is the most important things regardless of 10kh and how
| someone gets there. If someone doesn't enjoy what they are
| doing, they won't practice and they won't get better.
| Felger wrote:
| Am I the only one wondering why almost everyone asking HN
| questions gets downvoted every da*n time ?
| aristofun wrote:
| As soon as you buy in to any concept, idea or a myth -- it (or
| rather your subjective interpretation of it) starts manifesting
| in your real life with real consequences.
|
| If you truly want to achieve some goal -- you'd rather find and
| absorb any examples of other people achieving similar goals, and
| filter out everything else.
| artificialLimbs wrote:
| I started programming (intermittently because wife/kids and
| fulltime job) at ~37, got my first coding job at ~40. Do it.
|
| Use time management practices for max effect. I'm currently
| listening to Cal Newports' "Deep Questions" podcast, and even the
| first few eps (go back and listen from the start) have been
| tremendously helpful.
| sebastianconcpt wrote:
| One thing I don't see used strongly enough is know-how transfer
| from GenXers to Millenials. Docs won't do it. And everything
| depends on that.
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| Please explain detail and context further. Do you mean a
| mentorship kind of relationship?
| mmcgaha wrote:
| So lets say you plan to retire in 22 years. An 18-year-old
| starting college will be 40 in 22 years. I would say you have
| plenty of time so don't waste it.
| mceachen wrote:
| Gladwell is hugely entertaining.
|
| His conclusions, unfortunately, range from arguable to wholly
| indefensible conjectures.
|
| Many have disputed the 10k hour rule. "Practice makes permanent"
| is a thing.
|
| If you're really excited to learn something new, and have a
| modicum of aptitude, and have a mentor, go for it.
|
| Act to minimize future regret.
| Grustaf wrote:
| It doesn't take 10000 to become good enough at something to work
| in it. A couple of hundred hours is often enough.
|
| If you want to work as a programmer, management consultant,
| business developer or similar that is. Becoming first violin does
| take tens of thousands of hours.
| geijoenr wrote:
| I have the feeling is in midlife when people switch careers, so
| 43 doesn't sound strange to me.
|
| You have to be ready to take an income cut though, at least at
| first. Other than that, I don't think you should be afraid.
|
| That 10k hour rule is stupid. Talent is what makes the
| difference, either you have it or not. Regardless, it has nothing
| to do with switching jobs, most people moderately suck at what
| they do and make living and live happy lifes.
| username4567 wrote:
| Not the exact timing, but my grandfather started a phd in his
| late 30s. He then had a fulfilling career as a professor for
| almost 20 years.
| spamizbad wrote:
| I knew a guy who used to install metal roofs in farm country. In
| his late 30s he got a nasty job site injury and his boss screwed
| him out of workers comp. He'd always had a passive interest in
| computers and decided to get some certs at the local community
| college and start his career in IT. Messing around with scripting
| at his first job as a Junior Sys Admin he decided he liked coding
| more and became a software engineer. He's now in his 50s and a
| staff engineer at a unicorn.
|
| It can be done. I would focus less on hours and more on just
| finding something you can stick with and develop professionally.
| innocentoldguy wrote:
| I successfully switched careers at 51. The way I did it was to:
|
| 1. Figure out what I really wanted to do. 2. Build a plan to make
| that transition. 3. Test each phase of my plan and make
| adjustments along the way.
|
| Since then, I've worked at two Big Tech companies doing what I
| enjoy doing.
| codingdave wrote:
| Even if we just accept it at face value... 10K hours to be an
| expert does not mean 10K to make a career change. It means 10K to
| be the top of your field. So it is really up to you - can you
| handle being a junior level team member for a few years? If so,
| switch and do what makes you happy. But if being the expert at
| the top of the field is more important to you, then do not
| switch.
| memling wrote:
| Gladwell's 10k hours rule is disputed.[1] Assuming it were true,
| for sake of argument, it's not 10,000 hours to get _good_ at
| something. The difference between _bad_ and _good_ is much, much
| smaller than the difference between being _good_ and _great_ at
| something. Josh Kaufman argues that 20 hours could be enough.[2]
|
| All things being equal, make a change. I did this more or less
| accidentally (applied for programming, got turned into a systems
| engineer) and it was terrific. Feeling stupid is awful, but it's
| pretty good for you in the end.
|
| [1] https://www.goodlifeproject.com/podcast/anders-ericsson/1
|
| [2] https://piped.kavin.rocks/watch?v=5MgBikgcWnY
| zxcvbn4038 wrote:
| Working in technology you should plan to reinvent yourself
| several times during your career. I used to be a Novell Netware
| engineer, fast forward forty years and I have to explain what
| that was to people.
| jmchuster wrote:
| Specifically for software development, you have the example of
| Coding Bootcamps. It's not a guarantee, but the better your
| Bootcamp brand-name, the better your region's job prospects, the
| more time you spend hobby coding before applying for the
| Bootcamp, there's a very high likelihood of a successful
| transition into the software industry. And all in the period of 6
| months to a year.
| CyanLite2 wrote:
| You can do anything you put your mind to. But if you have doubts
| or not fully committed, then you're more likely to fail.
|
| In other words, just do it. Don't look back. You only have so
| many years of your life left. Make it worth it.
| helsinkiandrew wrote:
| I haven't read the Gladwell book but I believe most or a lot of
| the examples used to prove the 10,1000 hour rule have been
| debunked. Very often the reason people will continue practicing
| for 10,000 hours is they've got some skill in it, or are getting
| a benefit from doing the skill before becoming an expert and
| hence continue to do it.
|
| Having said that there are many things you can be good at, make a
| living at, and enjoy doing before becoming a true expert. Or that
| your existing skills will transfer too.
|
| The important thing is to see (as much as you can) if you will
| enjoy doing and working hard at the "other job" before you make
| the leap
| twawaaay wrote:
| I wonder when people will stop unquestioningly believe this 10k
| hours crap.
|
| If you spent a lot of time in one job there is good chance a lot
| of your skills are transferrable to the new one.
|
| When I decided to change jobs I figured out I want to make good
| use of the skills I already had, supplement them with some new
| skills and create a niche for myself that is overlooked/unpopular
| because it requires skills that you can't normally find on the
| market when looking at people who spent their entire life doing
| just one thing.
|
| Make the fact you are changing jobs your advantage, not your
| disadvantage.
| jjslocum3 wrote:
| >asserting that the key to achieving true expertise in any skill
| is simply a matter of practicing.
|
| It's been a while since I read it, but my takeaway was that the
| depth of familiarity brought about by 10k hours of practice in an
| area was just one factor of many that contributed to success. You
| need all those other factors in addition to the 10k hours.
|
| I think it's just humans with our predictable penchant for
| distilling accurate nuance down to adjacent-but-inaccurate bullet
| points that created the idea that 10k hours is all it takes.
| erokar wrote:
| Forget about the 10k myth. I think it's absolutely feasible to
| switch careers at your age, and I assume it's software
| development you're thinking of. I think half a year to a year of
| intense study and practice should be enough to make you
| employable.
|
| But first, figure out if this is something you would like doing.
| Take a course like e.g. this
| https://www.coursera.org/learn/python for a month (you can audit
| it for free) and see if you actually like programming. If you do,
| carry on.
| throwaway576652 wrote:
| You will definitely be an expert when you spend on something
| 10,000 hours.
|
| However, to change a career, you need much less.
|
| To get a very junior tech/programming job I would say it's
| something like 500-1000 hours.
|
| That's about the same as most coding bootcamps. And a lot of
| people who went through a coding bootcamp were able to get a job
| in tech.
| tyingq wrote:
| Are you switching jobs to something completely different, where
| absolutely none of your current skills are transferrable? Given
| your age, that seems unlikely, as you've probably chalked up a
| fair amount of experience in various areas.
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| I know someone who in his 40's, after working in the navy, then
| went to medical school and became a doctor! You can certainly do
| it if you are willing/able to put the time into it.
| justinzollars wrote:
| > Could I switch career when I am 43?
|
| You can do anything you want. I switched at 27, with 5 years
| experience teaching at college and a masters degree in
| Biology/Chemistry. I jumped into computers. If I get sick of
| computers I'll do something else.
| shtopointo wrote:
| Yes, you can. You probably also want to take it step-by-step -
| i.e. test the waters before jumping in. If you are concerned
| about transition, take it slow: make a side project, then see if
| you can freelance on the side, part time it, then full time it.
|
| Mastery will come if you have a passion for the subject, and
| probably will not come otherwise. No amount of perseverance will
| make you interested in something you are not interested in.
| theboywho wrote:
| The 10k hour rule has been debunked by many studies. For further
| reading, I recommend the book:
|
| Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World by David
| Epstein
| lamontcg wrote:
| I switched from System Engineer to Software Developer when I was
| 40.
|
| I need to make another jump now when I'm 50. You should be fine
| when you're 43. Just try to keep a lid on the imposter syndrome
| for a few years. Try not to be inflexible as well. And change up
| little things that you do from time to time. Try programming in
| an IDE if you've never done it. Try a new programming language.
| Change the shell you use. Whatever. Don't necessarily hop on the
| latest greatest trends on HN headlines since that can be
| exhausting, but there's lots of well worn technologies out there
| to stretch yourself with.
| [deleted]
| tumetab1 wrote:
| I think you first need to be honest with yourself about a few
| things, at least these:
|
| A) What does being a master really means to me? Others respect?
| Peer recognition? Work autonomy? B) Am I willing to change
| careers knowing I will never be a master in it? C) Does the
| trade-off of changing from a career that I master to a career
| that I will never master worth it?
|
| In your question there's already an implied NO, do not change,
| because being a master seems important to you.
|
| Regarding mastery, it's always difficult to achieve it, starting
| at 20 years old or starting at 50 years old. Most people don't
| achieve it, they just feel comfortable after a while.
| protomolecule wrote:
| "mastery, it's always difficult to achieve it"
|
| The better I get at programming, the further I feel to be from
| the 'mastery' (whatever it is).
| thenerdhead wrote:
| Think of it another way. It will take you a few years to get
| kinda good at something. Even less to get kinda good enough to be
| paid for it.
|
| Time is only a factor for retirement. Your career will mostly be
| forgotten when you retire anyway.
| robot wrote:
| yes, only that it will take 2-3 years of work on the new topic.
| One benefit of it at this age is your brain will remain fresh and
| young.
| smilindave26 wrote:
| Tim Ferris' thoughts on the 10k rule (https://genius.com/Tim-
| ferriss-what-about-the-10000-hour-rul...), including "how do you
| define mastery?" and "are there ways to more efficiently master
| something?"
|
| How much of what you currently know can you relate and apply to
| becoming an expert in your new career? There might be more than
| you expect.
|
| As far as being more efficient, learning from someone who has the
| experience you seek can make a huge difference. I'm a mainly
| self-taught guitar player, and I spend a lot of time identifying
| problems with my technique and inventing little practice routines
| to work on correcting them. I enjoy this process, but I know I'd
| save a lot of time if I worked more with people who could easily
| identify issues with my playing and already know best practice
| routines to correct 'em.
| labrador wrote:
| I used to dislike Gladwell but I've come to have a grudging
| respect for him. He took an old 7 word phrase "the straw that
| broke the camel's back" and turned it into a full length book
| called "The Tipping Point." People wanted to buy it because they
| liked exploring this idea in more depth and Gladwell made a bunch
| of money while becoming famous. It's hard to argue with success
| like that. I would never have thought that "the straw that broke
| the camel's back" needed further elaboration.
| treya wrote:
| 10,000 hours may be a vague rule of thumb, but it says nothing
| about what is going on, and it's not just a matter of practicing.
| Learning, knowledge, wisdom, etc. all come from neural growth
| over time - your brain responds to
| thinking/concentrating/practicing by growing in the areas of the
| brain that were used, and this growth accumulates over time. Even
| in much older people the brain is plastic and is producing new
| neurons in addition to growing existing synapses, albeit at a
| gradually slowing pace. A corollary to this is, don't expect to
| understand things immediately - keep working at new concepts and
| skills. If you persevere, over time you will understand them and
| become proficient.
|
| It's important to note that "practice" can't be something like,
| for example, simply taking tennis lessons - you must be
| challenged and struggle for it to have an impact. I would also
| include desire as being essential - it must be something you
| truly want to do, not something you just go through the motions
| for. Also consider that your physical health, regular exercise,
| diet and quality of sleep are intimately tied to cognitive
| growth.
| Dowwie wrote:
| Assuming you live a lucky, healthy, full life with access to
| healthcare, you can live until your 80s. You will have at least
| another 25 years left to work in good health. There are some
| physically demanding jobs that you won't qualify for, but aside
| from those you've got plenty of options as to what you can do in
| the next 25 years.
|
| I think the real challenge is seeing a vast region of mountains
| ahead and mustering the willpower and focus necessary to traverse
| them. You have to want it and will it into reality. The journey
| begins with the next step.
|
| The 10,000 hour is bunk, by the way. Not even Gladwell will
| defend it. It was an interesting story about peak performance,
| but not scientifically valid.
| mehdix wrote:
| > The journey begins with the next step.
|
| Am I reading a quote from The Stormlight Archive? Life before
| death, journey before destination.
| daniel-cussen wrote:
| mriet wrote:
| In my own experience, and based on what it I've observed, it's
| all about demand and supply.
|
| I have been hired for jobs even though I said "I do not have any
| experience doing this."
|
| If you're switching, switch to something that there's enough
| demand for that the chance you need a safety net is shall.
| grayscaleadam wrote:
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I'm 60.
|
| I've probably done my most meaningful work, in the last 15 years.
| I feel that I learn more quickly -and better- than I ever did,
| when I was younger.
|
| It's hard to get 10K hours into _anything_ , these days, as tech
| is a moving target, but it's doable.
|
| Being OCD (like me) is helpful.
|
| These days, I specialize in Swift programming, for Apple devices.
| I'm _really_ obsessive about it (My GH Activity Graph is solid
| green, and it 's pretty much all Swift[0]). Even with writing
| Swift, every day (since the day it was announced), I feel as if
| I'm just barely keeping up.
|
| [0] https://github.com/ChrisMarshallNY#github-stuff
| michaelcao wrote:
| Great job. Congratulations. Besides G Suite Workspace addons, I
| also work on some QR Code, Barcode IOS apps. I love Swift.
| elforce002 wrote:
| This resonates with me on a deeper level. You have one life.
| That's it. You have 3 choices:
|
| 1- You succeeded trying it.
|
| 2- Neutral outcome (still a win).
|
| 3- You fail. Failing at something will only teach you how to do
| it better or at its worst, leave you at the bottom of the barrel.
| The only thing you have after that is to get up and keep moving
| forward.
|
| The other side of that would be regret. Regret has to be the
| worst feeling in the world. The "why I didn't do it" thought will
| hunt you for the rest of your life.
| ilc wrote:
| As someone who is a coder:
|
| My "career" switches with each job. I go from Defense, to
| Logistics, to Mathematics, to Systems Software, to now Databases.
|
| I'm not trained in all these to 10,000 hours. I have 25+ years at
| this, and I still have to learn at every job when I start.
|
| So, the most important thing is the core. The very core
| competencies of a programmer:
|
| - Rigor - You must be willing to rigorously think things through.
|
| - Mathematics - With the above, most of what a computer does
| is... math in the end. Algerbra is probably the most essential,
| ironically. Followed by Discrete Math. The rest is all nice to
| have.
|
| - A bit of "Computer Science". Learning algorithms, what O(n)
| means, etc. This helps you understand how to think.
|
| Note: I never mentioned a computer language.
|
| A computer language is how you take all the above and turn it
| into something.
|
| You should work on learning a few. But honestly, one you know 2
| languages, you know 90% of all languages, and can read most code.
|
| The languages I'd suggest: Python, and C.
|
| People will curse me for C. But honestly for understanding how a
| computer works at a low level, there is no better language, it
| strips away the bullshit and leaves you to deal with the machine,
| but it doesn't force your nose into assembly, which is probably a
| bit much for a young programmer.
|
| Python, is what you learn to do "real work". I interview in
| Python, Python and Python... and maybe a bit of Python. There's a
| reason. It is a language that you can really get things done in
| quickly, and manipulate things easily. It is the "anti-C" in many
| ways :).
|
| One can argue for Java also. But really, Java is miserable
| without an IDE, and the machine does so much coding for you, I
| think it is a bad early language. Once you know the first two...
| I think it is a great one to pick up.
| aerlinger wrote:
| > But really, Java is miserable without an IDE
|
| Very true. It's also miserable with an IDE.
| ilc wrote:
| Eh,
|
| It is usable with an IDE. Also it forces OO and interfaces
| down your throat, which is important when picking up other
| languages.
|
| The other languages you'd choose to learn in the "Java" slot
| are:
|
| - C++. I like new programmers too much to suggest this. Even
| if they know C.
|
| - golang - Not a bad choice, but forced OO is a good thing to
| learn.
|
| - C# - I haven't done enough of it, but it felt like Java on
| the CLR to me. Maybe with some warts moved around.
|
| - Common Lisp: Too obscure, too alien to read.
|
| - rust - No... just no. Too early.
|
| - ML, Haskell and friends - Yes, I love you all. But...
| Understanding a simple type systems is important before
| taking on Hindley-Milner type system language.
|
| So I'm kinda stuck with Java. It sucks the least. :)
| ftyhbhyjnjk wrote:
| Never be afraid of change. It's difficult no doubt, but better
| than regrets later. Just make sure to know for sure this is what
| YOU want. And only YOU.
| flashgordon wrote:
| I know how it feels. Ive wasted my career missing good
| opportunities due to fear (and also missed many bad opportunities
| thanks to fear :) ). Assuming you dont have responsibilities like
| mortgage etc and fear is the only factor in your way - How would
| you feel about asking this same question in 10 years time when
| you are 53?
|
| By the way 10k hours is consistently spending 3 hours a day for
| 10 years. So you _could_ spend the next 10 years practising and
| then switch - but that kind of all-or-nothing means you could
| have missed the boat for what it is you are trying to get mastery
| on.
| TruffleLabs wrote:
| See this article
|
| The "10,000-hour rule" was debunked again. That's a relief.
|
| https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/8/23/20828597/th...
|
| "Which is why I find these debunkings of the 10,000-hour rule to
| be a complete relief. Because implied in the rule (at least, to
| me) is a deeply self-deprecating message: that if we fail to
| achieve greatness, it's our own damn fault. And what screw-up
| would forgo greatness?"
| GianFabien wrote:
| There have been studies that have contradicted the 10,000 hour
| rule. However, my understanding is that the rule is about
| attaining mastery through effective practice. You don't need to
| reach mastery level in order to be make a valuable contribution
| in a new job. Obviously it really depends on what sort of career
| change you are contemplating. If it is to become an international
| concert pianist and you have never studied music or played any
| musical instrument, then it is most likely a _stretch goal_.
| However, if you are a competent programmer with one language or
| environment, then changing to a different language, etc will
| probably see you being quite good after a year, i.e. 2000 hours.
| With more effort you can only improve.
| djcjr wrote:
| That book is nonsense, so I would disregard it in this context.
|
| Programming language matters. You can't really achieve expertise
| with some in any amount of time. Choose a simple language at
| first. Also, I recommend learning more languages than just one.
| It gets easier the more you know.
| YawningAngel wrote:
| I think the answer is "yes", but you should be aware that Malcolm
| Gladwell is a bullshitter.
|
| https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/08/the-dan-p...
| https://archive.ph/yPd3R
| projektfu wrote:
| Yes, but is he a talented bullshitter or an accomplished one?
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| both
| iansowinski wrote:
| You'll use a lot of skills from your current job in the new
| career path. Just do it!
| jacek wrote:
| 1. Gladwell has a difficult relationship with truth and reality.
| 10,000h rule is utter nonsense and has been debunked many times
| since.
|
| 2. You don't need to master anything to switch careers. You just
| need to be useful and productive. Many employers will value your
| experience, work ethic, knowledge and will trust you to learn on
| the go.
| spking wrote:
| Best advice, plus best delivery of said advice:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXsQAXx_ao0
| dijonman2 wrote:
| You must always think you can do anything, push yourself to do
| and be better. Don't let negativity enter your mind, with this
| thinking everything is possible.
| bathyspheric wrote:
| My teens was my first jobs; pizza places and pamphlets. My
| twenties was travelling, hospitality and finance. My thirties was
| university, science and programming jobs. My forties has been a
| masters and now teaching, I wonder what my fifties will bring.
| Each change has let me take skills and experience from one sphere
| and apply it differently.
|
| 10k hours is not a guaranteed unless it's directed practice. 2k
| and some flexible thinking can get you a long way towards
| interesting and new experiences.
| seemaze wrote:
| Regardless of whether the 10,000 hour rule is true, it seems you
| are conflating becoming an expert with successfully switching
| careers. I know more people than not who are successful in their
| careers despite being non-experts.
| monster_group wrote:
| It depends on why you want to switch. If you want to switch
| because you love the new line of work then go for it but
| understand that you will start as junior and most likely make
| less money than you do currently for several years. But if you
| like your new line of work then you will get good at it and make
| more money in a few years. If you want to switch for any other
| reason, think hard about it. It may not be worth it. Often grass
| seems greener on the other side but when you get into the weeds,
| you realize it's all, well, weeds. (I fantasize about becoming
| physicist, rancher etc. but I am gonna stick to writing CRUD
| apps. Those jobs are way harder and pay way less.)
| mugivarra69 wrote:
| wow, so succinct.
| bejd wrote:
| Many people here are saying the "10,000 hours rule" is a myth,
| and while I wouldn't disagree with them it's a little more
| nuanced than that. Gladwell is a populariser, and simplified the
| research of Anders Ericsson [1] into a catchy soundbite.
|
| Ericsson describes "deliberate practice". That is, to become an
| expert you must "work on high specific tasks assigned to overcome
| weaknesses, and you would have your performance monitored
| carefully for further improvement" [2]
|
| [1] https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1993-40718-001
|
| [2] https://www.ysamphy.com/anders-ericsson-deliberate-practice/
| michaelcao wrote:
| Deliberate practice is a craft, not art. I understand 10000
| hours in a simpler manner. We need to do our homework, get
| shi*t done. In the long term, we could get the positive result
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| It's a rule. If you have practiced for only 9,999 hours, 59
| minutes, 59 seconds, 999 milliseconds you suck.
| petercooper wrote:
| I know this is just one person who was in a different time and
| under different circumstances, but I've found it inspirational to
| put age into perspective.
|
| Grace Hopper first entered computing at age 38, completed the
| first compiler at age 46, influenced the design of COBOL at age
| 53, wrote COBOL for the Navy through her 70s, retired from the
| Navy aged 80 and only _then_ became a consultant for DEC. So for
| _me_ , at least, I reckon I can keep going in my 40s.. :-)
| mattjaynes wrote:
| And to continue the Grace Hopper example... Remember that she
| transitioned to computing from being a Mathematics professor at
| Yale, so she was able to leverage her previous training into
| the new career.
|
| Try and do the same if you can. Leverage what skills you've
| already gained to switch into a career where they are a big
| advantage. Then you are starting nearer to those already in the
| field, not the beginning.
| ghaff wrote:
| >Leverage what skills you've already gained to switch into a
| career where they are a big advantage.
|
| Absolutely. In many cases, there are often a wide range of
| related/adjacent jobs that are significantly different in
| various ways but can nonetheless be a fairly natural
| transition. (Though key word _can_. I 've seen examples that
| worked and examples that didn't.)
|
| On the other hand, I'll go back to school and get a Masters
| degree in this very tangentially related STEM field is
| probably going to be a lot harder.
| xyzwave wrote:
| Harder, how so?
|
| And even if harder, wouldn't it still be a productive means
| towards the end of moving into that field?
| ghaff wrote:
| If I go from product management into software development
| into some sort of technical marketing or sales role or
| even to certain types of consulting, there's a fair bit
| of overlap in the IT industry related to general
| knowledge of the market, practices, etc. I've changed
| jobs substantially twice and significant training to
| transition was never needed at all.
|
| And, sure, if you want to change to a completely
| different area with much less overlap, that's not to say
| you shouldn't do so. But I certainly couldn't walk right
| into an unrelated engineering job at this point even if
| it were related to undergraduate coursework. In fact, it
| would be probably be easier for me to do a software job
| today even though I did essentially no programming in
| school.
| nebulous1 wrote:
| I don't know about this one. She got a Ph.D. in Mathematics
| from Yale when she was 27. This was in 1934, before Computer
| Science was an established academic field (it was the 60s
| before anybody got a "Ph.D. in Computer science"), so everybody
| was coming from some other academic background, often
| maths/engineering/physics.
| garyrob wrote:
| Thanks for mentioning in this, which I hadn't seen before. I
| collect stories of successful aging because I am now 66 and
| hope to keep creating software, and ideas that can be
| implemented in it, for some time to come!
| michaelcao wrote:
| I admire you. I hope that I could be healthy to code at 66.
| Wish you all the best
| knorker wrote:
| There are two good reasons why Grace Hoppen should not be used
| as an example.
|
| 1. You are (likely) not Grace Hopper.
|
| 2. Computer science was, in a way, much easier back then. At
| least very different. Listen to the Brian Kernighan being
| interviewed by Lex Fridman; he keeps repeating that you didn't
| have to be as awesome back in his days, using himself as an
| example.
|
| Saying "If Grace hopper can do it, then so can I" is like
| saying "If John Carmack can repeatedly write a AAA game
| (basically) by himself then so can I"[1].
|
| Not only are you not John Carmack, but this is also not the
| 1990s. Hell, "throwing triangles at the problem" is just not as
| hard as it used to be.
|
| Marie Curie got the Nobel prize in two disciplines. That's
| amazing. But doing it in 2022 would be 100x as amazing, making
| it basically undoable.
|
| [1] Simplifying a lot. I'm aware of the story but I think my
| point is valid still, since it's "true enough" when measuring
| Carmack's coding impact.
| atdrummond wrote:
| The good news is Quake was an exception to game develop
| experiences (in many ways!), not the rule.
|
| So the mindset "If Carmack can make Quake, then I can QA
| Subway Surfers for iOS" seems imminently reasonable.
| knorker wrote:
| Not just Quake, though.
|
| I remember it as first there was Wolfenstein 3D, and people
| went crazy not believing their eyes. Then they learn about
| the technology, and go "ok, well that's cool, but can't do
| real 3D".
|
| Then that cycle repeats for Doom.
|
| And then Quake, except this time it really was 3D. Quake
| didn't even really have load times!
|
| Ok, so these people can be inspirations. But probably
| should not be used as an example that should be expected to
| be followable.
| ghaff wrote:
| Even beyond Grace Hopper being an outlier, software/computer
| science is probably something of an outlier more broadly.
|
| You can find a ton of people in their 50s through 70s today
| who ended up in some flavor of computers and software even
| though they barely touched a (non-typewriter) keyboard until
| college or even later. But at least part of the reason they
| were able to do so was that a lot of computer science was
| still relatively young and, even if you majored in CS
| undergrad, what you got was probably more of a mix of math
| and electrical engineering than what a lot of people learn
| today. (Or, for that matter, what a lot of programs expect
| someone to already know before showing up to their first CS
| class.
|
| And then, on the other side, a lot of people jumped onto the
| first dot-com bubble when a front-end web designer didn't
| really need to know much. (And arguably the situation is
| somewhat in play today--at least for the time being--with
| bootcamps etc.)
|
| Which is a long-winded way of saying, I'm not sure how
| applicable the situation in the software industry is
| applicable to technical fields more broadly.
| travisporter wrote:
| But (1) is suggesting only a woman at that age with those
| life experiences could have done what she did. I don't see
| why that has to be empirically true
| fn-mote wrote:
| HN guidelines are to respond to the strongest possible
| interpretation. This comment doesn't seem to do that. A
| more engaging response would draw better follow-ups.
|
| I read this comment as mysogynistic. Why focus on Grace
| Hopper being a woman, as opposed to her being a math
| professor (Ph.D.), Navy reservist, the time that she made
| the change (1940s), or some other salient quality?
|
| [Please don't respond to my comment... unless you have
| something to say that improves the discourse here.]
| knorker wrote:
| It's not how I meant it.
|
| She had the experience, education, skill, and drive to
| succeed when she was put in the right place at the right
| time. I was with (1) mostly referring to education, skill,
| and drive.
|
| But also If you were a PhD in math in 1934 and wanted to
| switch to computers, then you were not "competing" with a
| bunch of people who'd been doing computers since they were
| 5, because nobody had.
|
| Parent post said she went to computers in ~1945, which is
| just two years after "I think there's a world market for
| maybe five computers".
|
| None of that is transferrable to just anybody's career
| change decision.
|
| With (1) I could have also said that Ricky Gervais went
| into comedy at close to 40 years old. But you're not Ricky
| Gervais, so it's not likely to work out for you.
|
| It's partly a lottery win, too, where you don't need
| certain life experiences to win.
| petercooper wrote:
| I totally agree, hence my preface. I don't believe that to be
| inspired by great people and their situations means one has
| to expect to repeat their feats in full. I'm not a Chinese
| military general but I have been inspired by Sun Tzu ;-)
|
| That she contributed so much with such energy from her 40s
| through to her 80s inspires me to not see my age as a
| downside. Am I ever going to be 1/100th as smart or
| consequential as Hopper? Ha, of course not!
| mromanuk wrote:
| Thank you, didn't know about her.
| michaelcao wrote:
| he's a genious. I live in Viet Nam and the unemployment benefit
| is not good so I'm cautious to switch career. That's why i
| founded a company and be a founder and CEO as a part time job.
| Braelan1 wrote:
| TrapLord_Rhodo wrote:
| Range is a fantastic book that completely discredits the whole
| book. Give it a read, it will make you understand how the world
| actually works outside of elite athletes.
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Range-Generalists-Triumph-Specialized...
| sidcool wrote:
| "There's no speed limit" https://sive.rs/kimo
| raintrees wrote:
| Gladwell biased his measurement to experts in their field, did he
| not? 20 hours can be enough in many things to get started, 150
| hours decent enough to begin to command income from those
| efforts, and if it is pleasurable to you and provides value to
| others, the road goes up from there in a positive feedback loop.
|
| That has been my experience. Consider giving it a go!
|
| Edit: I wish to add the paraphrased concept: Don't let
| perfectionism be the enemy of done/accomplished... Another lesson
| I am working on :)
| eloff wrote:
| First of all the 10K-hour rule is pretty bullshit. Not all hours
| are equal. It's all a sliding scale with diminishing returns.
| Also there's no minimum level of expertise to reach your career
| goals. Like in body-building, the initial efforts for an
| untrained person pays off dramatically more than later effort.
| See the 80/20 rule.
|
| You can definitely switch careers at any age. But you also should
| think about it in terms of both personal satisfaction and
| opportunity costs. There's a tendency to think the grass will be
| greener in the new career. That may not be true, most generally
| available work has large unsatisfying components - otherwise you
| wouldn't need to pay people to do it. The other thing is
| opportunity costs. If your new career requires losing 4 years of
| income while you do an undergraduate degree, plus paying for said
| degree, then you're 48 and have maybe 17 working years left until
| retirement (varies, but just an example) then you have to think
| if you wouldn't just make more money in your existing career,
| with less risk. Money might not be your primary objective here,
| but it often is. Also could your family afford for you to be
| earning negative income (paying for training) while retraining,
| for the duration required?
|
| There's no one-size fits all advice. Just don't rule it out
| because of your age. Do the math and be logical, not emotional,
| about it. Get some friends to check your math, because they will
| be more impartial than you.
| jokethrowaway wrote:
| If you think you're smart enough and good at learning, do it!
| Whatever field you're planning to get into you'll be competing
| with a lot of non experts. Sure, you probably won't outclass
| people with the same IQ who've been doing it for longer - but who
| cares?
|
| Let's talk examples: The reason tons of people from other
| professions can become devs and be competitive in a couple of
| years is because: A. A huge chunk of lifelong professional
| developers are terrible B. Even well paying jobs don't require
| you to do that much, it's the same crap over and over
| Bombthecat wrote:
| My wife is starting to study UX design...
|
| She is 42.. she doesn't know a single windows command line
| command
|
| So yeah, you definitely can :)
| duxup wrote:
| I took a coding boot camp at age 40+ and changed my career.
|
| Been working for years, making good money, very happy with the
| decision.
| michaelcao wrote:
| Congratulation
| brhsagain wrote:
| If you have to ask, don't do it.
| rollschild wrote:
| If you want to do it, do it. Fuck everything else.
| j1mmo wrote:
| I can't remember where I found the idea or if there is any
| scientific evidence behind it but I like it, increasing your rate
| of failure is the best way to learn something. If it took a
| computer 30 minutes to compile code, compared to a few seconds
| for a small program today, you could only run a program 8 times a
| day and debug your mistakes. So I would say, do not worry about
| time, but find a method of learning where failure is swift :)
| Unbeliever69 wrote:
| Hey young man, go West. When I was your age I switched from Ux to
| software dev.
|
| When I attended college at 43 I was the top student in all my CS
| classes. Same, when I attended an immersive 3-month bootcamp 5
| years later. Now, nearly 10 years later I am an owner in a
| startup.
|
| I will admit that I had some advantages. First, I was a life-long
| programmer hobbyist. Mainly a dabbler but I made stuff, mostly
| games. Second, as a Ux designer, I worked in the industry and
| side-by-side with developers so I knew my way around the shop.
| And last, I've been a learner my entire life so getting in the
| groove to return to school was easy.
|
| Good luck.
| TrevorJ wrote:
| One thing I find helpful is to inventory your meta-skills. There
| are a lot of jobs that require meta-skills which can be super
| useful in completely different domains. Jobs that require you to
| learn things on the fly, jobs that require you to interact with
| people and navigate complex situations with multiple
| stakeholders, etc. You may find that there are a ton of things
| you are good at which will transfer readily to the new path you
| want to step out into.
|
| And even if not, it's probably worth a shot anyway if you are
| interested in it.
| fm2606 wrote:
| Yep. I switched career fields at 36, stayed for 14 years and then
| switched career fields again at 50. Still in this new career
| field but just changed companies in August at 52.
|
| It took me a relatively long time (6 to 9 months) to land this
| new job. I'm pretty sure my skills weren't where they needed to
| be as a software developer played more of a part than my age for
| other companies to not hire me. I had some great interviews but
| it all worked out. Really happy with the new company.
| effnorwood wrote:
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| If you have a bit of a safety net, by all means give it a try. I
| wish I could.
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| The 10,000 Hour Rule is misnamed. It's not a rule. It's a rough
| estimate.
|
| Also, when you read the small print, it does not guarantee
| success. It simply say that *if* you aim to achieve mastery - to
| be towards to the top of your given field - then expect to put in
| *at least* 10,000 hrs.
|
| It's a generalization and will vary from individual to individual
| and skill to skill.
|
| As a side note, I recently started reading "The Are of
| Possibility" by Zander and Zander. If your considering a career /
| life pivot then this book might be for you.
|
| https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/the-art-of-possibility-transfo...
| piscatorialvet wrote:
| osigurdson wrote:
| I believe there is a genetic maximum capability by age (GMCA) for
| any given endeavour. Certain categories of endeavours require
| significant time spent in youth (early teens to mid twenties) in
| order to reach GMCA - let's call these type 1 endeavours. For
| others, you can start later in life and still nearly reach GMCA
| (type 2). Other endeavours are more heavily skewed to genetics
| and may not require a significant time investment (type 3).
|
| Examples of type 1 endeavours are violin, guitar, chess,
| skateboarding, gymnastics, hockey, soccer, competitive
| programming and slope style mountain biking.
|
| Examples of type 2 endeavours are cycling and long distance
| running.
|
| Examples of type 3 endeavours are sprinting, poetry and power
| lifting
|
| This is a bit of a strawman, but I think it has the potential to
| be more accurate than GMCA can be achieved simply in 10K hours.
| sinenomine wrote:
| Thank you for a rarely heard voice of reason among the sea of
| self-help-inspired virtue signaling.
|
| I find this culture of explicit expectation of anyone being
| able to become anything at any age deeply depressing - not just
| for myself, but for society as a whole. It's not hard to see
| the rising depression rates and the obvious relevant pathway
| towards it - society producing unrealistic expectations in the
| individual only to be shattered by uncaring reality X years
| later. This extreme blank slate-ism is simply inhumane at this
| point.
|
| We should acknowledge your simple model of individual human
| potential dependent on genetics, age and early learning. We
| should accept the fact that human neuroplasticity is a rapidly
| falling curve when plotted by age.
|
| With these truths in place we could develop objective evidence-
| based models of human potential and derive solid advice from
| these.
|
| Only such advice I would consider humane, while feel-good
| verbalizing should be considered abuse.
|
| If you think about it, professional sports training is
| structured not unlike this scheme. I wonder why we can't accept
| this method for broader and more important sections of society.
| BergTheBold wrote:
| If you think you can afford to make a change and you have a clear
| goal, then you should take advantage of it before your life
| changes and you can't any longer. I had a major career change in
| my early to mid 30s (I'm 40 now) and it was one of the best
| decisions I've ever made. I've heard a saying which I heard is an
| old Chinese proverb; no clue if its background is true or not,
| but it goes like: The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago.
| The second best time to plant a tree is right now.
| guilhas wrote:
| You don't need to master it to change career, just do it. You can
| always go back if you need to
| throwaway0asd wrote:
| I have spent far more time programming than I have in management,
| roughly 25 years in near full time versus 18 years part time. I
| now have the confidence to refactor people/departments the way I
| do functional programming. I am not sure how close to 10000 hours
| either of those skills are.
|
| If I had the freedom to start over right now (also 43) I would
| get into experimental horticulture. I think there are a lot of
| missed opportunities to improve macronutrient quality and water
| resource management with lower pesticide requirements for
| commercial agricultural in developing economies that wealthier
| economies frequently ignore.
| pengo wrote:
| Absolutely. I've had multiple careers, my most recent starting
| when I was 46. N
| matwood wrote:
| First, the 10k hour rule doesn't mean people are terrible and
| then suddenly become experts. They are getting better the entire
| time. I would argue the large majority of working professionals
| are nowhere near experts at their jobs for the simple fact if
| someone is any good they tend to get promoted to a new job.
|
| Second, I know many people who switched careers. You have plenty
| of time at nearly any age if you are willing to be humble and
| learn. I have found that it's not that older people can't learn,
| it's often they are unwilling. At someone who just turned 45, I
| make it a point to practice humble learning daily.
|
| Finally, think about what you can uniquely bring over from your
| old career to your new career. People skills transfer very well,
| but also industry knowledge and general business.
| BlargMcLarg wrote:
| >for the simple fact if someone is any good they tend to get
| promoted to a new job
|
| It's nowhere near that simple. "Too good at x in X to promote
| to y in X, where X is a career path and y is a stage above x"
| is fairly common.
| IvanaDora wrote:
| We fear change as we get older and we no longer like to take
| risks, especially if those risks can affect our earnings,
| stability etc. But if you sum up the currage, things can really
| change for the better. Go for it
| elforce002 wrote:
| Thanks for sharing. You're absolutely right.
| sitkack wrote:
| Yes.
|
| It doesn't take 10k hours to master something. Nor do you need to
| master something to have it be your career.
|
| Being an outside to a new thing at your age can bring insights
| that others can't bring. Use your head, but there are lots of
| ways you can bring this to your advantage. It is the folks that
| cross domains that bring the gains.
| iovrthoughtthis wrote:
| i would try not to fall prey to an entirely "rationalist"
| perspective here
|
| you cannot predict the future and success is dependent at least
| as much on "luck" as it is on expertise
| danesparza wrote:
| Short answer is yes.
|
| My wife is an RN. She went to nursing school in her 40's and
| became a nurse.
|
| I have a coworker who was a teacher in their 20's, went to school
| again, and is now a software developer.
|
| I have a coworker who as a Civil engineer, went to school again
| and is also a software developer.
|
| It can be done.
|
| What will you do with your one wild and precious life?
| michaelcao wrote:
| good examples. Thanks. Recession is looming so i keep both full
| time developer and startu's CEO as a part time job. We automate
| most tasks so it's feasible.
| sam1r wrote:
| Rather then measure expertise with practice (subjective), I feel
| like it's much more productive to measure it with time spent
| (objective, hence 10k hours) on it.
|
| Time spent feels much less stressful than "I've practiced heavily
| regularly".
|
| Since humans inevitably improve with repetitions or practice,
| it's less scary (for me or imo) to just "put in time" versus
| "practice" to get possibly better or intimidated by what's
| "enough expertise"
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| You don't need to become a master to switch jobs. You just need
| to be able to learn new things. You weren't a master at your
| current career when you started it.
|
| Assuming you will live to 86, you still have half your life ahead
| of you. But the longer you wait, the less time you have.
|
| Just do it. You will regret not trying.
| lawn wrote:
| The 10 000 hour rule is bullshit.
|
| But you're right that you can switch career and with enough
| practice (of the dedicated kind) you can indeed acquire
| proficiency in any skill.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| > Gladwell repeatedly refers to the "10 000-hour rule," asserting
| that the key to achieving true expertise in any skill is simply a
| matter of practicing. It could be the greatest practice myth.
|
| Is everyone who has a rewarding career in an in-demand field
| actually a 'master' of that field? Seems unlikely.
| tacosbane wrote:
| don't ever do, say, or think anything because of malcolm gladwell
| mustafabisic1 wrote:
| I found a great article searching through Hacker News the other
| day - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32497780
|
| It's appropriately called "There's no speed limit". A lot of
| rules from there apply here as well.
|
| It's about a guy who finished college in 2 years, if I remember
| correctly.
|
| I've written it down on my white-board and remind myself about it
| everyday.
|
| Thought you might find it useful.
|
| P.S. I'm working on believing in myself and shamelessly plugging
| my weekly newsletter for remote working parents everywhere -
| check it out. https://thursdaydigest.com/
| FlyingSnake wrote:
| Love Derek and his aphorisms and came here to share the same.
| mustafabisic1 wrote:
| Btw Any take on this? https://sive.rs/h Just discovered it.
|
| Love this quote and it seems fitting here - "Many books
| believe they know how you should live. But each book
| disagrees with the next. In "How to Live", each chapter
| believes it knows how you should live. And each chapter
| disagrees with the next."
| rkwasny wrote:
| Yup, good one for a light read and thinking about the world
| ryandvm wrote:
| The 10,000 hours thing is A) probably more workforce folklore
| than fact, and B) about becoming an expert, but you don't need to
| be an expert to switch careers. Hell, you don't even need to be
| an expert to be highly successful.
|
| I'm in my 40s also and one of the things I've become certain
| about over the years is actual competency is depressingly low on
| the list of traits you need to have a successful career. Far more
| important are traits like confidence, charisma, the ability to
| bullshit (I hate this), and soft skills.
|
| Don't sweat the 10,000 hours. It's probably not true and you
| don't need to be an expert anyway. I'd say if you really want to
| switch careers, go for it. Worst case scenario is it doesn't work
| out and you can come back to your current field. That's a far
| better outcome than spending the remainder of your life wondering
| if you could have done it.
| BlargMcLarg wrote:
| The 10k thing is ridiculous for anyone who understands basic
| pedagogy and, as you mention, actually pays attention the
| competency of their peers across their life. Most individuals
| are stuck doing the same challenges over and over very early in
| their trajectory. It is not at all efficient for learning, but
| it is the safest bet for employers to ensure consistent
| production (in their minds anyway).
|
| The main benefit is having _any_ kind of positive coefficient
| in a world where you have to work to pay your bills anyway.
| f1shy wrote:
| I know people that were programmers or in the IT branch, now are
| pilots. Also know pilots (extremely good ones) that left, and
| started doing different things, from having a shop, to selling
| land (real state).
|
| It is never late! Just try. Failure is not trying.
|
| Btw no sure if that is your case, but this remembers me of the
| story:
|
| One guy was in a train visibly uncomfortable. At every stop, he
| was totally annoyed, and each stop worst. Other guy ask him why
| is he in such discomfort. "You see, I bought the ticket wrong,
| I'm going in the wrong direction. At each stop I think of
| stepping out, but that would mean losing the ticket completely!"
|
| If you are doing something not fulfilling, doesn't matter how
| much you have invested. Stop and take the right direction.
| pessimizer wrote:
| I will ignore the speculation about how hard it will be, and just
| recommend Anki and spaced repetition to make it easier. You're
| almost as old as me, so there's a ton of old crap filling your
| head and it's harder to remember new things than it was when
| everything was new to you. Anki will help.
|
| I'm also trying to actively forget song lyrics, but that probably
| doesn't help. I do hate that probably 5% of my brain is filled
| with lyrics, and probably 1% is filled with the lyrics of songs
| that I don't even like. I hope they invent a plasticity drug that
| I can inject directly into the song lyrics center of my brain
| ("Bowie's Area," maybe?)
| belmarca wrote:
| Switch to or from software engineering?
| standardUser wrote:
| Expertise isn't something you need to start a career, it's
| something you gain over the course of a career. Figure out the
| minimum necessary skills to enter a new field and focus on
| developing those skills.
|
| Even if you did spent the (completely mythical, made up) 10,000
| hours, you'd likely be wasting a lot of time if most of those
| hours aren't in the actual profession, as opposed to some
| detached academic hobby.
| JamesAdir wrote:
| You might want to read Grit: https://www.amazon.com/Grit-Passion-
| Perseverance-Angela-Duck...
| wengo314 wrote:
| it's not the number of hours you put in - it's how you practice.
|
| you can get very proficient quickly if you apply insights to your
| performance to identify your shortcomings and address those.
|
| and similarly you can spend 30k+ hours learning something and be
| merely mediocre.
| cbsks wrote:
| Regardless of validity of the 10k hour "rule", you absolutely
| can. My mother, who had an undergraduate degree in electrical
| engineering but was a stay-at-home mom for 25 years, went to law
| school when she was 46. She worked as a patent attorney for 10
| years before retiring.
| ergonaught wrote:
| 1) The first bit of advice is to recognize that you, like almost
| everyone else who discusses "the 10,000 hour rule" (and what it
| means regarding "practice" and "mastery") have completely failed
| to understand what the actual author meant, so you do yourself
| and everyone else a favor by dropping the subject.
|
| 2) The second bit of advice is to examine this "reality" thing.
| You can, obviously, switch careers anytime you want. Only you can
| define what "success" in that career will mean for you, what
| investments will be required in order to achieve it, whether you
| will enjoy the process, whether you are asking the impossible of
| reality (a very short, sedentary, middle aged person just isn't
| going to switch into the "Professional NBA Superstar" career),
| and so on.
|
| 3) Your life expectancy is, what, roughly 80 years now? You've
| spent maybe 20 or so on your current career. You've got twice
| that remaining, theoretically, and you're concerned about time
| having run out already?
|
| All this is a roundabout way of saying your own attitudes toward
| all of this are the main, though not the only, challenge you'll
| need to address provided you are not asking to violate
| physiology/etc.
| michaelcao wrote:
| Thanks for your feedback. Because i'm a disabled person and
| financial recession is coming so i am very careful to switch
| career.
| chadash wrote:
| _> The first bit of advice is to recognize that you, like
| almost everyone else who discusses "the 10,000 hour rule" (and
| what it means regarding "practice" and "mastery") have
| completely failed to understand what the actual author meant,
| so you do yourself and everyone else a favor by dropping the
| subject._
|
| It would be helpful if you can explain _why_ people
| misunderstand this rule or at least point to somewhere that
| does rather than essentially saying, "you don't know what the
| 10k rule is".
| secretsatan wrote:
| I wouldn't say switching career exactly. I'd worked with asset
| management software for utilities and telecoms a good twenty
| years, it used a propriatory language no one outside the industry
| recognised. I got made redundant from my company, and getting
| another job in the field would have required moving country. TBH,
| I was thoroughly bored of the field anywsy, and was starting to
| see my career ending as some aging beardy in a server room
| looking after a valuable database no one could upgrade anymore.
|
| I switched to mobile dev, although still in a related field.
| Well, I didn't just start out that way, to keep myself occupied
| during redundancy, i developed some fun stuff I was doing on
| MacOS, someone liked it and wondered if they could do the same on
| their iPhone, so I worked out how to do that.
|
| I put several years of time into it, it wasn't a very successful
| project for making money, but it gave me something to demonstrate
| when applying for mobile jobs at the age of 43, and eventually
| landed me a job.
|
| I had plenty of related experience I suppose and soon started
| making an impression in my new line, now I work on an app I
| developed and proposed myself to the company. I feel happier I
| work with more modern languages, that I can come up with an app a
| company thought had enough potential to invest time and money in,
| and is slowly starting to get successful and has an impact in my
| industry.
| ElijahLynn wrote:
| The 10K hour rule came from the research by Erics Anderson and
| you can learn more by reading his book "Peak: Secrets from the
| New Science of Expertise".
|
| It contests the generalized statement from Malcom Gladwell's
| writings and then the book makes sure to say that it it needs to
| be 10K of deliberate AND perfect practice (not just practicing
| incorrectly for 10k hours).
|
| This book will prove that you can learn anything at any age, and
| it doesn't need to be 10K hours to learn a shit ton.
|
| This is the first book I have my software student mentees read
| when they start. Why? Because it does one thing. Gives them hope.
| soneca wrote:
| You don't have to master anything to switch careers.
|
| I switched careers from marketing to software development at 37
| yo. It took me 8 months of full-time study (I had the privilege
| to be able to quit my job to do that) to get my first job as a
| front-end developer. Now, 5 years later, I think it was the best
| professional decision I have ever made in my life. I am much
| happier doing daily work than before and, now, I earn much more
| than I used to (despite a significant salary cut for my first dev
| job).
|
| To put in hours, I would say 8 months averaging 7 hours of
| dedication on week days is about 1232 hours.
|
| And I am no master, far from it. I am a competent, mediocre,
| regular 1x web developer. Some weeks I am 0.5x, some weeks I am
| 2x.
| headmelted wrote:
| I'd love to hear more about this switch as a family member is
| considering something similar as a 42 y/o.
|
| If you don't mind, was it long ago that you made this switch?
| Was there anything that you'd do differently in retrospect?
|
| The big one I guess: do you feel that not having gone the
| "traditional" route made it more difficult to find roles in the
| early days?
|
| Feel free not to answer if too invasive but I'd find any info
| really helpful.
| soneca wrote:
| It was in 2017. I wrote a lot about it at the time:
| https://rodrigohgpontes.github.io/
|
| It was a different moment, not sure if better or worse for
| junior developers getting a first job. It was before
| companies were "desperate" to hire software developers, like
| about a couple of years ago, which made them hire more junior
| devs. But, it was also before the current hiring market
| contraction (as a proxy see a post mentioning the low number
| of posts in Who is Hiring thread). But, it was also before
| remote work was more common (it was effectively impossible to
| be hired remotely as a junior back then, now it is just
| hard). Not sure how all of this balances out.
|
| I wouldn't do anything different. I still vouch for not
| paying anything to learn to code. I used freeCodeCamp and it
| only got better since then. To see how I did it, the blog is
| a good source.
|
| About not having a traditional background it both hurt and
| helped me.
|
| I just reread this passage on my blog that I had forgotten:
|
| _"People will undervalue you. Chances are not all
| interviewers will be nice. On a promising application for a
| cool job, I got a call from the founder. He said something in
| the lines of "You know, you have to understand that you are
| competing with a lot of young guys who are coding since they
| are twelve. You have a lot of catch up to do. You have to
| expect an intern salary and even so work harder to show you
| can become a good developer. Because I'm not sure you can."
| Maybe he was just using some shitty negotiation technique to
| hire me on a low salary, maybe it was ageism, maybe he
| thought I was delusional on my aspirations and decided to
| give me a lecture to be more down to earth. Whether he was
| stingy, mean or patronizing, it was definitely a place that I
| wanted distance."_
|
| So it hurted in this case. I also read some discouraging
| comments here on HN on a thread where I said I want to go
| from scratch to hired in 4 months. But, it also helped get my
| first job. I was hired to work a small team that one senior
| developer that was only 20 years old at the time. He was
| technically worth of being considered a senior, but had to
| improve in other areas. They saw me being a 37yo junior
| developer with a lot of professional experience and good
| communication skills a good match for him. Also, they valued
| my diligence and dedication on changing careers. Saw that as
| evidence that I would be continuously learning. So, my advice
| is to be able to demonstrate in an interview that previous
| professional experience will be useful in the new technical
| job. How do, depends on the background and strengths of each
| one.
|
| I do think my blog has useful advice still in general.
|
| I do think it is a good career change and possible at 42yo,
| and I would encourage them. The only small caveat is that
| they need to realize early if they "enjoy" coding. It is
| important. Few people are capable of committing to the
| continuous learning demanded to have a good career in
| software development "only" for the money.
|
| Good luck to them!
| sabman83 wrote:
| I switched from a career in software development to creative
| producing in films and television. I make less pay and I am not
| the most skilled compared to others in the industry. I have some
| knowledge but I have lots to learn. Thanks to Covid none of the
| projects I have worked on have gone into production. But they
| will next year and I will have opportunities to learn then.
|
| I am no master. But I enjoy the job and I am happier. I made the
| switch at 36.
| bloqs wrote:
| The hours rule is nonsense. You can of course change career at
| 43. However, while we are all born with relative potential,
| intellectual capacity and more importantly, personality play
| significant factors.
|
| Intellectual capacity doesnt change much until past about 70 and
| it's tied to long term diet, lifestyle and external factors.
| Personality is also largely plastic past the age of 6. It can
| shift over time, and this is one of the advantages of youth, you
| are still malleable.
|
| Age beings to rob this from you as routine and habit starts to
| build up parts of your brain. Change takes time. 43 is still
| young in the grand scheme of things, particularly in 2022, but
| you must question if the change you want is simply your
| personality being novelty-seeking or the grass being greener
| elsewhere.
|
| One good reason is if your personality fit has been bad to your
| current work.
| smeej wrote:
| 43 years old is only as limiting as you believe it to be. There
| are plenty of people who are experiencing the most fruitful,
| expansive, creative time of their lives at that age, and they're
| not "special" in some way you aren't.
|
| If you tell yourself you're too old to make a change or learn new
| things, you'll find it harder to make a change and learn new
| things.
|
| If you tell yourself you're going to meet challenges, as
| everybody does, but you're better equipped to solve them now than
| you ever have been, you'll be able to handle whatever comes your
| way.
|
| I'm not always a "mindset is everything" person, but when it
| comes to believing you can or can't do something really important
| to you that's well within the scope of what ordinary people do
| all the time (i.e., you're unlikely to be able to pivot to an
| elite athletics role), believing you can do it too makes a big
| difference.
| iancmceachern wrote:
| Do what you want. You don't owe it to thr world to master your
| new thing. You just have to be good enough at it to get by. If
| you spend your remaining working years doing something you want,
| but perhaps at not the same level of performance as your last
| role, that's ok.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-10-07 23:02 UTC)