Ask HN: 10k hours rule to master anything. Could I switch career when I am 43?

187 points by michaelcao 3 years ago | 291 comments

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?

WastingMyTime89 3 years ago |

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.

NikolaNovak 3 years ago | |

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?

WastingMyTime89 3 years ago | | |

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.

iandanforth 3 years ago | | |

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.

sillystuff 3 years ago | | |

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.

Art9681 3 years ago | | |

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".

andrew_ 3 years ago | |

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 3 years ago | | |

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)

dinaufilter 3 years ago | | |

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.

david422 3 years ago | |

> 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 3 years ago | | |

To quote my old trainer, "the weight's not gonna lift itself."

jrm4 3 years ago | |

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 3 years ago | | |

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.

anderspitman 3 years ago | |

> drop Gladwell and self-help books

The advice I like is "read them until they all sound the same".

hesdeadjim 3 years ago | |

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 3 years ago | | |

Reminds me of the classic yoda quote "do or do not there is no try".

WheelsAtLarge 3 years ago | |

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.

annyeonghada 3 years ago | | |

>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.

Especially if they are already rich.

>DOers are those we read about all the time.

Because nobody wants to hear about the DOer that failed and ruined his/her life.

>You never hear about those that did nothing. Maybe, we read their name in a grave stone.

And maybe they had a great family and their name will be remembered in the family for generations as the "founder" of the family. Almost a mythological figure.

toss1 3 years ago | |

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 3 years ago | | |

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 3 years ago | |

Good advice. Thanks. I don't read self-help books. I believe in learning by practice

rajeshp1986 3 years ago | |

Great answer. I realized this pretty recently that I have been thinking a lot of doing things and never getting to it. I joined a startup and seeing every having the "do things" mentality made me realize this.

balaji1 3 years ago | |

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.

tomthumb 3 years ago | |

Words of wisdom! I have tweeted your first paragraph. Hope you don’t mind..

j3th9n 3 years ago | |

This.

iainctduncan 3 years ago |

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.

petercooper 3 years ago |

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.. :-)

tgv 3 years ago |

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?

soneca 3 years ago |

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.

mustafabisic1 3 years ago |

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 3 years ago | |

Love Derek and his aphorisms and came here to share the same.

mustafabisic1 3 years ago | | |

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."

monster_group 3 years ago |

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 3 years ago | |

wow, so succinct.

YawningAngel 3 years ago |

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 3 years ago | |

Yes, but is he a talented bullshitter or an accomplished one?

insane_dreamer 3 years ago | | |

both

bejd 3 years ago |

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/

29athrowaway 3 years ago | |

It's a rule. If you have practiced for only 9,999 hours, 59 minutes, 59 seconds, 999 milliseconds you suck.

michaelcao 3 years ago | |

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

ergonaught 3 years ago |

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.

chadash 3 years ago | |

> 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".

michaelcao 3 years ago | |

Thanks for your feedback. Because i'm a disabled person and financial recession is coming so i am very careful to switch career.

Barrin92 3 years ago |

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 3 years ago | |

Thanks for sharing. Loosing everything looks daunting but you are alive. Get up and keep moving forward.

rossdavidh 3 years ago |

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.

ChrisMarshallNY 3 years ago |

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 3 years ago | |

Great job. Congratulations. Besides G Suite Workspace addons, I also work on some QR Code, Barcode IOS apps. I love Swift.

anemoiac 3 years ago |

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.

GianFabien 3 years ago |

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.

eloff 3 years ago |

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.

danesparza 3 years ago |

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 3 years ago | |

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.

secretsatan 3 years ago |

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.

adamgordonbell 3 years ago |

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 3 years ago | |

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 3 years ago | | |

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.

theGeatZhopa 3 years ago |

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 3 years ago | |

> 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.

smeej 3 years ago |

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.

ilc 3 years ago |

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 3 years ago | |

> But really, Java is miserable without an IDE

Very true. It's also miserable with an IDE.

ilc 3 years ago | | |

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. :)

bloqs 3 years ago |

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.

osigurdson 3 years ago |

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 3 years ago | |

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.

defrost 3 years ago |

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.

f1shy 3 years ago |

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.

Dowwie 3 years ago |

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 3 years ago | |

> The journey begins with the next step.

Am I reading a quote from The Stormlight Archive? Life before death, journey before destination.

pessimizer 3 years ago |

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?)

noufalibrahim 3 years ago |

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.

helsinkiandrew 3 years ago |

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

spamizbad 3 years ago |

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.

erokar 3 years ago |

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.

crispyambulance 3 years ago |

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.

elforce002 3 years ago |

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.

simonblack 3 years ago |

Could I switch career when I am 43?

<grin> I switched wives at age 42. That was my biggest life-change ever. That old saying "Life begins at 40" is so very true.

Here's the thing: "YOU CAN SWITCH CAREERS NO MATTER WHAT AGE YOU ARE."

Most of us have opportunities to switch careers many times during our lives. Some of us take one or more of those opportunities as they arise, and some of us don't. It's your choice.

Some of us are forced into different careers, because of external factors. That can be at any age. I was forced to take over the family property-rental business when I was 62. Yes I'm still 'working' a decade or so later, if you call working one to two hours a month 'working'. Money ceases to be a factor in your life when you have more money available than you can reasonably expect to spend in the years you have left.

In my forties, I passed up an opportunity to become a computer programmer in the medical field when my first wife declined to move to a larger city.

Five or so years later, I qualified as a commercial pilot, but the aviation downturn in the early nineties meant I earned more in my normal career as pharmacist at that time, then later on I was no longer able to pass the Aviation Medical.

treya 3 years ago |

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.

sabman83 3 years ago |

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.

lawn 3 years ago |

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.

piscatorialvet 3 years ago |

Gladwell is a soldier in the imperial arsenal. His books are disgusting because they mislead and confuse. I promise you it doesn’t take 10k hours to achieve whatever he thinks. It might take that long if you are going in alone with no mentor. But if you are then yes it’s too late. To become an expert. But who cares about being expert? Being good at your job doesn’t matter as much as being courteous and becoming friends with the people you interact with. Job proficiency just proves you don’t know anybody so you have to try and compensate by being an expert. You can only be an expert in games like basketball and chess. They wont divulge their secrets that they worked hard for unless you’re their son. Our system is a long drawn out affair filled with time eating classes and training that isn’t necessary. The European gentry planned it this way so that they could come over and take jobs quickly while we spent our time in school or stupid jobs like healthcare. They do this in all areas of the economy.

gonzo41 3 years ago |

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.

pizza234 3 years ago |

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.

smilindave26 3 years ago |

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.

artificialLimbs 3 years ago |

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.

memling 3 years ago |

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

ryandvm 3 years ago |

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 3 years ago | |

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.

SevenNation 3 years ago |

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.

jacek 3 years ago |

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.

throwaway576652 3 years ago |

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.

ludwigvan 3 years ago |

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.

chiefalchemist 3 years ago |

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 3 years ago | |

Rules are rough estimates. Do this and this could happen or not. Roughly stating a generalization of consequences. Every rule breaker does not get punished and vice versa.

alexfromapex 3 years ago |

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 3 years ago | |

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 3 years ago | |

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 3 years ago | | |

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.

samatman 3 years ago |

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.

matwood 3 years ago |

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 3 years ago | |

>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.

haspok 3 years ago |

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 :)

guilhas 3 years ago |

You don't need to master it to change career, just do it. You can always go back if you need to

jonahbenton 3 years ago |

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.

justinzollars 3 years ago |

> 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.

lamontcg 3 years ago |

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.

throwaway0asd 3 years ago |

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.

tumetab1 3 years ago |

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 3 years ago | |

"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).

CyanLite2 3 years ago |

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.

jokethrowaway 3 years ago |

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

Unbeliever69 3 years ago |

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.

ElijahLynn 3 years ago |

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.

flashgordon 3 years ago |

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.

jaffee 3 years ago |

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...

TruffleLabs 3 years ago |

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?"

IvanaDora 3 years ago |

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 3 years ago | |

Thanks for sharing. You're absolutely right.

twawaaay 3 years ago |

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.

labrador 3 years ago |

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.

ourmandave 3 years ago |

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...

TrevorJ 3 years ago |

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.

spoonjim 3 years ago |

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 3 years ago | |

Given Stable Diffusion maybe you made the right choice!

spoonjim 3 years ago | | |

I honestly just didn’t like drawing.

jjslocum3 3 years ago |

>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.

BergTheBold 3 years ago |

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.

fm2606 3 years ago |

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.

raintrees 3 years ago |

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 :)

bathyspheric 3 years ago |

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.

amid11 3 years ago |

Internet is domesticated in Iran, which is kinda like an intranet without access to the outside, however there are some data centers in Iran which still can access the Internet. For any kind of VPN to work, clients have to go through a proxy at least.

j1mmo 3 years ago |

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 :)

shtopointo 3 years ago |

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.

geijoenr 3 years ago |

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.

standardUser 3 years ago |

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.

dijonman2 3 years ago |

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.

ftyhbhyjnjk 3 years ago |

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.

kamaal 3 years ago |

10K hours rule is to master something, its not a rule that prevents you from getting into important things now.

Most things aren't exactly walking on a rope between skyscrapers level risky that you need absolute practice and perfection. You get lots of room to make mistakes and learn, and beyond all this doing things that matter is a matter of priority not practice.

Whatever it is, get started now.

tomcam 3 years ago |

I'm in my 60s and firmly believe I could learn just about anything I needed to make a living within a couple years. Obviously excluding things that require a college degree, e.g. doctor, lawyer, architect, etc.

I taught myself enough programming to get into Microsoft and enough business to retire from what I earned myself.

jmchuster 3 years ago |

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.

MilStdJunkie 3 years ago |

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.

sam1r 3 years ago |

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”

astroalex 3 years ago |

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.

codingdave 3 years ago |

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.

TrapLord_Rhodo 3 years ago |

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...

Zensynthium 3 years ago |

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

aristofun 3 years ago |

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.

sitkack 3 years ago |

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.

bryanrasmussen 3 years ago |

> 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.

duxup 3 years ago |

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 3 years ago | |

Congratulation

0xbadcafebee 3 years ago |

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.

mriet 3 years ago |

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.

Arete314159 3 years ago |

My mom separated from my dad and, with a young child, went back to grad school at age 40. She got her PhD at 55, and tenure at 67.

While she's a very difficult person, I do admire this trait and willingness to reinvent herself, and I think I've been more fearless in some ways because of it.

iancmceachern 3 years ago |

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.

ryanthedev 3 years ago |

Are you asking if you can switch to a developer career? I think absolutely. Remember, you don’t need to become a master to start a career. I know people who have gotten work after doing a bootcamp.

The most difficult task will be getting your foot in the door. After that, you’re golden.

djcjr 3 years ago |

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.

cbsks 3 years ago |

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.

mceachen 3 years ago |

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.

cliftonk 3 years ago |

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 3 years ago | |

Walton's story is the opposite of the OP. Walton was in retailing for years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Walton

Grustaf 3 years ago |

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.

innocentoldguy 3 years ago |

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.

JamesAdir 3 years ago |

You might want to read Grit: https://www.amazon.com/Grit-Passion-Perseverance-Angela-Duck...

tyingq 3 years ago |

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.

philipswood 3 years ago |

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.

seemaze 3 years ago |

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.

thenerdhead 3 years ago |

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.

Yizahi 3 years ago |

A short video regarding "10000 hours" and learning in general - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eW6Eagr9XA

zxcvbn4038 3 years ago |

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.

firecall 3 years ago |

Even if the 10,000 hours to be an “expert” is valid, you don’t need to be an expert to be successful.

You don’t need other people to validate your choices or your define your level of expertise or success.

spking 3 years ago |

Best advice, plus best delivery of said advice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXsQAXx_ao0

HarHarVeryFunny 3 years ago |

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.

JDoubleA 3 years ago |

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.

mmcgaha 3 years ago |

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.

sebastianconcpt 3 years ago |

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 3 years ago | |

Please explain detail and context further. Do you mean a mentorship kind of relationship?

theboywho 3 years ago |

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

sidcool 3 years ago |

"There's no speed limit" https://sive.rs/kimo

username4567 3 years ago |

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.

RHSman2 3 years ago |

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

huimang 3 years ago |

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.

Bombthecat 3 years ago |

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 :)

wengo314 3 years ago |

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.

iansowinski 3 years ago |

You'll use a lot of skills from your current job in the new career path. Just do it!

dotcoma 3 years ago |

Can you not switch career, given that you don’t like your current one?

pengo 3 years ago |

Absolutely. I've had multiple careers, my most recent starting when I was 46. N

micromacrofoot 3 years ago |

If you have a bit of a safety net, by all means give it a try. I wish I could.

engineer_22 3 years ago |

10k hours is only 5 years. You will be a master before you are 50.

iovrthoughtthis 3 years ago |

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

robot 3 years ago |

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.

rollschild 3 years ago |

If you want to do it, do it. Fuck everything else.

dev_0 3 years ago |

Read Art of Impossible by Steven Kotler

belmarca 3 years ago |

Switch to or from software engineering?

brhsagain 3 years ago |

If you have to ask, don’t do it.

tacosbane 3 years ago |

don't ever do, say, or think anything because of malcolm gladwell

Felger 3 years ago |

Am I the only one wondering why almost everyone asking HN questions gets downvoted every da*n time ?

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.