A lot of them really want to learn something new but they don't have time for that.
Thats why this week I would like to present interesting video about that in order to master the new abilities we don't need to spend a lot of time we need only about 20 hours for that.
Please watch this movie and answer the questions.
1. What do you think about the author's assertion that new skills can be learned in 20 days ?
2 .How much time do you need to master the skills and what makes you the biggest problem when you are learning something new ?
3. What is your way to master a new skills ?
1. In general, I agree with the author, however, this technique applies to the acquisition of new skills in the case of the low-skilled. In my opinion this will not work when you try to acquire knowledge of a high level of abstraction without proper previous preparation, as well as without lack of talent; for example, when you as a graduate of humanities secondary school would like to get to understand Gödel's first incompleteness theorem in 20 hours (or even 20 days). It would be even worse if this graduate wanted to acquire the skills necessary for proving the theorems of this class. On the other hand, for several years I have been training in the area of rock climbing and mountaineering (details available on my website http://rt.alpejska.net/?id=14) and I have had similar experiences in the area of the technique and the time required to move in high mountains as a completely new skill.
ReplyDelete2. Learning some simple skills or more complex ones, but those that I earn on the basis of past experience, sometimes takes me less than 20 hours. The hardest part is to learn something that requires mechanical memorising (as opposed to associative techniques) to capture a large number of operations.
3. My methods are similar to the one introduced in this topic. They consist mainly of: structural decomposition, focus on basic activities, and of correcting of the observed errors.
While I was reading your entry I was thinking how it is possible to learn some new thinks (like playing ukelele or some climbing techniques) in 20 hours whereas learning other things seem to be impossible.
DeleteI noticed the following aspects:
1. Some disciplines are well-known. Maybe nowadays it is possible to train only 20 hours before climbing in the Alps (I skip a matter of the most difficult hills or seasons) but it was impossible 100 years ago.
2. The matter of competition: when I started to ride on some mountain hills on my MTB I had some personal successes after 20 hours. But my achieved skill doesn't allow me to get successes during sport competitions with another people (even on the amator level). Some disciplines (like playing chess) base on competing contestants - so maybe we should think that 20 hours is required only for knowing the rules - nothing more. For some aspects it should be enough - i.e. learning driving car vs. being professional driver.
The longer I think on it the more I feel that authors chose one specific area, where 20 hours rule works, and generalizes that rule on everything. Do anybody feel the same?
I agree with you that some skills can be too complicated for some people that's why I think that more important than exercise are predisposed which we have on the other hand even someone deaf can play for example look on Ludwig van Beethoven:)
DeleteAbout that 19 hours maybe you have right I don't know that's why I will not argue with you:)
Grzegorz hard to say honestly it seems to me that you may be right, but to be sure this method need to be apply in practice, trying to master some difficult skill.
DeleteBut I proposes not to use it for learning rock climbing: P
Rock climbing isn't for me but similarly to Slawomir I suppose that 20 hours should be enough to start climbing. Of course I think about climbing in relatively easy terrain under care of any professional climber.
DeleteSimplifying, 20 hours sounds so unlikely to me that I think where any trap is :-).
Let allow me for another dilatation: person giving advice about 20 hours should be a personal trainer or other professional to be plausible. Do you think that he spent 10 000 hours mastering his skills connected with learning?
Maybe the hook is what the author says that 20 hours is enough to learn new skills at an acceptable level and not at the expert level.
DeleteI know that you probably just ask what it means to an acceptable level :)
I think it depends on the person, each person has a different level of acceptable :)
I think that what the author wanted to convey in this video is that when you learn a new skill the most important is practice. I am aware that the author has mastered the paying on the ukulele in 20 hours maybe he done it because he pointed out that it is enough to learn four chords. After 20 hours, he learned to play at a level that is acceptable by him but it doesn't mean that the same level must be acceptable to the others
Ok, I agree with an approach of different acceptable levels. I also may say that 20 hours of playing ukulele is enough to impress audience and emphasize author's thesis.
DeleteThe most important thing in your presentation for me is fact being motivational for many people. So, thank you again :-).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI really like this presentation because it is very motivating, and allow believing that we can change everything in our live but unfortunately I do not believe in it. First of all there are some skills that are not reachable for some people. If someone is deaf even ukulele may be too complicated instrument. There are people who simply cannot understand or feel certain things and this is a disqualifying for some activities. Other problem that I do really understand why 20 hours is this magic border. There are easier and harder activities maybe for majority is true but the problem is so badly-defined that even I could tell that just 19 hours is enough and it would be hard to argue with me.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that some skills can be too complicated for some people that's why I think that more important than exercise are predisposed which we have on the other hand even someone deaf can play for example look on Ludwig van Beethoven:)
DeleteAbout that 19 hours maybe you have right I don't know that's why I will not argue with you:)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. It seems overly optimistic to me. 10000 hours to master a skill seems quite reasonable, no argument from me there. But 20 hours to "learn a skill"... I'm not really convinced. Does this include the time required to gather the necessary learning material? Even using google to look for informations takes time - and so does going to library, watching some sort of tutorial movie and so on. It all adds up quite fast. Maybe if we conveniently ignore all those little things, we will get 20 hours. I'll remain skeptical.
ReplyDelete2. I can't really give a precise answer. "Skills" is far too broad of a term to give . And what does "mastering" mean anyway? In most cases, there's always something new to learn, both big and small. Or just practicing to stay in shape and not forgetting the "mastered" skill in a week or two.
I suppose 20 hours of pure learning time could be accurate for certain "skills" that aren't too complicated. In case of harder ones, this might be barely enough to grasp the basics. It still just an estimate, I never really measured it like this.
And it's always the beginning that's the worst for me. Getting past that initial hurdle of "this is so difficult, confusing and boring". Once I get past that or find something that's actually interesting and challenging in a good way, it becomes much easier to progress.
3. The learning methods suggested in the movie seem quite good. There might be some minor differences in the way I do it, but the basic idea is sound.
Krzysztof,
ReplyDeleteVery thanks for this article just before exam session. Hope has been yet ;-).
1. Similarly to Kamil I agree that 20 hours is a very optimistic period of time for the most cases. I also agree with Slawek's opinion that 20 may be enough for the easiest ones.
It seems to me that for playing ukulele we should remember that the author only presented acquired skill. In my opinion his play wasn't good but it was impressive because he presented rare skill.
And I also agree with Piotrek in case that some skills are unreachable (or hardly reachable) for some people.
If I relate to numbers presented in presentation I will say that using doubled Pareto's sounds me more reasonable than 20 hours. Using it gives 10000 hours * 0,2 * 0,2 = 400 hours needed for achieving master skill in 0,8 * 0,8 = 64%. But of course they are only numbers and we should remember that wo wouldn't play them without end :-). Additionally it is important to remember that the learning curve isn't straight so my calculation is also a simplification of reality. But 400 hours sounds better than 20, doesn't it?
2. Similarly to Kamil I can't give a precise answer for that questions but I'll try.
I feel as master only in one area - computer programming. It is my work and I spent a lot of hours doing it. I've been working as a full-time programmer for above 15 years. Simple calculation, which I've just done, shows that I've already spent about 17 thousands hours for practicing computer programming in my work. Adding time spent at home and during my master study I think that I exceeded 20 thousands hours mastering this skill.
3. My method of mastering new skill is also similar to the presented one. But I have to tell that personally I procrastinate almost everything thus I need more time than others for mastering a new skills. In my case behaving proper proportions between all 4 steps is the most important.
Heheh your welcome :)
DeleteFor sure 400 hours is more reasonable them 20 hours like you said it's sounds better.
Paraphrasing Laskowik words when someone told him that the tractor broke down He asked what exactly was broken and He got answer that one wheel so he said that instead of talking that the tractor broke down better is say that one wheel is broke and three are ok because it sounds better :)
My rhetoric isn't too good so thank you for outpointing me :-).
DeletePlease, sent this video to our dean's office - they should know how much time we need for learning anything :-).
It was very entertaining to watch this video. I must say that I find this concept appealing and I will try to check whether it works - so I'm searching for an ukulele just as I write this post! I believe that spending 20 hours on acquiring a new skill is sufficient to reach a reasonable level of proficiency in something. Although the "reasonable level" is a term that is very subjective and imprecise. After spending 20 hours on something perfectionists might think - "man... I spent all of this time and I can only do this?!" while others, which are more easygoing may say something far different just after 10 hours of practice -"that's it! I'm an expert in this and I can start learning something new!".
ReplyDeleteSo my opinion on this, is that we cannot clearly state that 20 hours of learning is a magical barrier after crossing which all of us will be happy with the level of proficiency in a new skill. And it also greatly depends on the granulation of skills that we are aiming to learn.
For example what does a statement like this represent: "I want to learn to play an ukulele". Does this mean that I want to know 4 chords and 1 song and learn how to tune my instrument? For a person like me, who plays the guitar for more than 5 years now, this would not even be close to the level that I would call "being reasonably good", but at the same time others might find these objectives overambitious.
So it all goes down to the individual...
I've heard the phrase "it takes 10 thousand hours to master a skill" before. I used to think, if you commit enough time, you can become great at anything. This video puts it in another perspective. Sometimes it's enough to find at least a bit of time to learn new things and still get an idea what's it like and how useful it is. So knowing when to stop and look for something else might also be a good approach.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, a single course is about 20 (real) hours per semester in education.
I think that 20 hours takes only lectures. Sometimes taking part only in lectures is enough to complete a course. Normally I spend more time on every course.
DeleteOf course it may be connected only with my personal possibilities. Maybe millennial generation is better than mine ;-).
If this can happen then will be very nice. Normally i learning very fast but i can't imagine how to learn a new skill in 20 days. Of course this depends what we want to learn (i mean complexity of this skill).
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to say "How much time do you need to master the skills and what makes you the biggest problem when you are learning something new" because some skills we can learn all life. I teach peoples diving and many things and i see people who will never learn some skills.
Study, practice, study again (yes! again read the books, watch tutorials), again practice. But even after this i know that I'm not a master.
Depends on what skills we learn. If we acquire hard skills need more time. You can not specify how much time we need to learn.Everything depends on the degree of difficulty of the task.
ReplyDelete20 hours is a long time and know each other, that by this time, you can learn a lot.
1. What do you think about the author's assertion that new skills can be learned in 20 days ?
ReplyDeleteIt’s very very interesting thing. I would like to believe it but in matter of fact I can’t imagine that ;/
2. How much time do you need to master the skills and what makes you the biggest problem when you are learning something new ?
Uhh it’s hard to say, few weeks ago I decided to spend more time learning english. Someone advice me to learn by reading books so I found something quite easy for the beginning. What can I say : I think my english is better but still it is not good enough for me. I spend at least 10h per week.
3. What is your way to master a new skills ?
Practice, practice and once more practice :)