Lateral Drift

Early this year, I read Malcom Gladwell’s book Outliers, and have since become a avid believer in what he referred to as the 10,000 hour rule.  To my knowledge he was only the one to popularize the notion, not coin it.  The idea stuck with me possibly because I instinctively believed in the concept before I had heard of the rule.  The rule asserts that to become an expert in anything one must devote 10,000 hours of dedication to it’s study.  Gladwell points out a couple examples such as Bill Gates who likely logged in over 10,000 hours of programming experience by the time he entered college.  Obviously, this had much to do with his success.

To better understand what 10,000 hours entails in terms of a time scale, I have listed a couple examples:

Study 20 hours a week for 10 years

Study 6 hours a day for 4.5 years

These two estimates should clearly highlight an important fact.  Mastery takes time and lots of it.  Long-term goals and plans for how to achieve those goals through daily practice appear crucial for achieving mastery in any field.  I myself have realized the importance of daily micromanagement and goal setting to ensure I stay on track to accomplish my objectives.  Realistically, most people, myself included, do not commit 3 hours of daily study towards any one subject.  The amount needed to gain mastery within 10 years.  With this in mind, we must then become realistic about the level of knowledge we expect to achieve in any one time period.

The 10,000 Hour Rule and Modern Society

Today’s modern world, which revolves around information technology, allows many of us to spend much of our day wasting time; watching television and browsing the internet (something I am seeking to limit myself).  In fact, according to a federal study in 2008 men and women on average spent 3 hours and 12 minutes a day watching TV.  I think future studies will find increasing amounts of time being consumed by internet use as well.  The point I am trying to raise by pulling these numbers is that if we reallocated more of our time away from the television which I would argue offers little for personal growth, and into something more intellectually or physically stimulating, we would free ourselves up to become quite skilled.  The hours we put in at school just are not adequate.  We must be committed to putting in our own personal work efforts to achieve mastery.

I think the lessons learned from this idea of how much time it takes to become masterful at something illustrate that although it is good to think and plan long term, one must set these plans into our daily lives.  We need to analyze our goals and decide if we can put in the time necessary to achieve the skill level we are aiming for.  We also need to start looking at the amount of hours we spend doing idle mindless things such as watching TV and realize the long-term impact of opportunities lost.  To end on an inspiring note, I believe that this rule also illustrates that you don’t have to be a genius to become good at something; you just need to put in your dues.

On Feb. 15, 2010, Leonard Pitts Jr. wrote a great post in his column called, “Do the country a favor, Sarah Palin, and run for president.”  The article speaks for itself, but  I just thought I would pass it along to those who may have missed it.

“DEAR SARAH PALIN:
I hear you’re pondering a run for the White House in 2012. Last week, you told Fox news it would be “absurd” to rule it out.

I’m writing to ask that you rule it in. I very badly want you to run for – and “win” – the Republican nomination for the presidency.

I know you’re waiting for the punch line. Maybe you figure I think you’d be a weak candidate who would pave the way for President Obama’s easy re-election.

That’s not it. No, I want you to run because I believe a Palin candidacy would force upon this country a desperately needed moment of truth. It would require us to finally decide what kind of America we want to be.

Mrs. Palin, you are an avatar of the shameless hypocrisy and cognitive disconnection that have driven our politics for the last decade, a process of stupidification creeping like kudzu over our national life.

As Exhibit A, consider your recent speech at a so-called “tea party” event, wherein you dismissed the president as a “charismatic guy with a teleprompter.” Bad enough you imply that teleprompter use is the mark of an insubstantial man, even though you and every other major politician use them. But what made the comment truly jaw-dropping is that even as you spoke, you had penned on your left palm, clearly visible, a series of crib notes.

Mrs. Palin, if Obama is an idiot for reading a prepared speech off a teleprompter, what are you for reading notes you’ve inked on your hand like a school kid who failed to study for the big test?

In the Fox interview, you scored Obama for supposedly expecting Americans to “sit down and shut up” and accept his policies. But when asked when the president has ever said that, you couldn’t answer. Obama, you sputtered, has just been condescending with his “general persona.”

I found that a telling moment. See, ultimately what you represent is not conservatism. Heck, I suspect that somewhere, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan are spinning like helicopter rotors at the very idea.

No, you represent the latest iteration of an anti-intellectualism that periodically rises in the American character. There is, historically and persistently, a belief in us that y’all just can’t trust nobody who acts too smart or talks too good – in other words, somebody whose “general persona” indicates they may have once cracked a book or had a thought. Americans tend to believe common sense the exclusive province of humble folks without sheepskins on the wall or big words in their vocabularies.

I don’t mock those people. They are my parents, my family elders, members of my childhood church. I honor their native good sense, what mom called “mother wit.” But if it is insulting to condescend to them, it is equally insulting to mythologize them.

More to the point, something is wrong when we celebrate mental mediocrity like yours under the misapprehension that competence or, God forbid, “intelligence,” makes a person one of those “elites” – that’s a curse word now – lacking authenticity, compassion and common sense.

So no, this is not a clash of ideologies, but a clash between intelligence and its opposite. And I am tired of being asked to pretend stupid is a virtue. That’s why I’d welcome the moment of truth your campaign would bring. It would force us to decide once and for all whether we are permanently committed to the path of ignorance, of birthers, truthers and tea party incoherence you represent, or whether we will at last turn back from the cliff toward which we race.

If the latter, wonderful, God bless America. If the former, well, some of us can finally quit hoping the nation will return to its senses and plan accordingly. Either way, we need to know, and your candidacy would tell us. If you love this country, Mrs. Palin, you can do it no greater service.

Run, Sarah, run.”

Leonard Pitts Jr, was the winner of the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for commentary and is a columnist for the Miami Herald.