Main point: "While training is essential to learning, spending a chunk of your life trying something over and over doesn’t mean you’ll go pro."
Other points:
- "..rehearsal time accounted for only about one-quarter of any disparity in skill level."
- "Other factors—like age, intelligence, and natural gifts—all played big roles in setting apart the better from the best."
- "Genes in particular shape physical and intellectual acumen."
The article's headline makes the idea sound more provocative than it really is. Of course, there are other factors involved. I like to think of it in terms of the triple-T triangle.
- Training: 10,000 hours and all that.
- Talent: The genetic component was mentioned earlier.
- Technology. Not mentioned but important. For example, musicians need the best instruments, athletes are particular about their equipment, and scholars rely on computers to support their research.
Put them together, and you have a framework for determining what it takes to achieve mastery. It's a combination of those 3 factors.
