I think 10,000 hours is not a bad estimate for *mastery* of a *field* (not simply competence in one aspect). Yes, I have read the original source (Gladwell) and the arguments either way. In my own career, my scientific academic work did need a high level of mastery, which I think I achieved by the age of about 35, after about 5000 hours of undergraduate work, more like 10,000 hours of postgraduate and the first 10 years of a research career. In the case of musical instrument playing, which I'm also familiar with, that is also about right; 5,000 hours gets you decent competence, 10,000 mastery of one or two instruments and many more for top international status. Students at the Royal College of Music (where I am doing a geriatric PhD in my retirement, in musicology not performance) are expected to do six hours practice a day for the four years they are there (this is after they have got Grade 8 or higher to get in, probably 3000 - 5000 hours total), probably around 5000 hours, plus the theoretical instruction. That will get some of them a professional orchestral position and all of them into a musical career at some level. I've probably had about 5000 hours playing over 65 years, and am a decent amateur standard but could not compare with any RCM student as a player.
Clearly individuals vary. But the key element of Gladwell and similar approaches in musical education is of "intelligent practice", of spending the practice time discovering and dealing with difficulties rather than plain repetition; too often one repeats and thus embeds one's mistakes. Sweeping the floor and making the tea contributes little (though not zero) to the 10,000 hours. Learning how to cut dovetails does contribute, as does learning to make them better each time. Keeping on making dovetails that do not improve does not. Attention to detail and how it can be improved is essential. For example, I am always impressed by Custard's thoughtful posts on the selection of wood, matching of grain, design and layout of joints, choice of finish, etc., etc.
Very often, when we speak of a "talented" woodworker, musician or whatever, we actually mean someone who has done the (intelligent) practice. When anyone says to me "I wish I could play a musical instrument", my response, whatever their age, is to say "Practice one for an hour a day, preferably with a teacher's guidance, and within a year you can say that you can play one." and of course play it better every year. You don't need 10,000 hours to get going. I am more and more feeling that "talent" means "the ability and motivation to put in the practice".
And BB's point is valid for us hobbyists. It is how we choose to spend our free time and resources, and improving our skills by intelligent practice is an end in itself.
Keith
