10X as much isn’t specific enough because it’s agnostic about the amount of work the person was doing before.
Two people could be failing to learn a foreign language. The first may be studying an hour a day, the second may be doing 5 minutes of daily Duolingo. Your prescription would have the first person studying 10 hours per day (probably overkill) and the second doing 50 minutes of Duolingo daily (perhaps still not enough).
It’s just a rule of thumb of course, but people aren’t totally delusional and I expect the person currently studying for 5 minutes has different goals than the one studying an hour (learn some phrases for my upcoming trip vs become fluent, perhaps). And if that’s the case, it could absolutely be true that both need to 10x their study to achieve their respective goals.
10 hours a day studying a language is hardly overkill. I learned to speak Portuguese fluently and spent at least 10 hours a day on it. The question isn't whether those hours will be useful, it's whether you have the hours.
I’m a violinist practicing to win an audition for a symphony orchestra. Four hours of practice a day seems reasonable. But apparently I need to warp the laws of physics to log 40 hrs/day if I wanna make the grade! 😫 This is terrible news...
Bryan’s rule of thumb is also valuable for discovering one’s limitations. If you are doing all you can, and 10x simply isn’t possible, then one should probably conclude that goal isn’t achievable (I don’t mean to suggest that this is the case for you). Not everyone who wants to be a professional athlete, artist, musician, academic, etc has the ability to do so no matter how many quality hours they devote to their craft.
Too true. I’ve been exploring a lot to find more effective practice methods. I feel like I’ve plateaued for over a year and really need a breakthrough. However, learning to be more effective also takes time. So, I think overall Bryan’s observations hold up. Maximizing time expended with no attention to quality is obviously ineffective, but even increasing efficacy takes time.
At least for competitive swimming, the differences between amateurs and professionals are qualitative, not quantitative. The professionals aren't just practicing harder - they practice in very different ways. The author classifies the differences in three categories: technique, discipline, and attitude.
The reason it might seem like hard work is most important is related to Simpson's paradox. Most people will gravitate toward competitions against opponents with similar ability. And within a given level, the winners are probably the people who work the hardest. But according to this article, working harder within the same basic strategy isn't enough to reach the next level.
I think perhaps the reason for this is that people generally don't know what the crucial ingredient is to be successful - even if it seems very simple to those who are already successful.
This is a very interesting post (not unusual for you, of course). But isn't it in some tension with your argument that people should have more kids because it's easier than they believe...that they don't have to be Tiger Moms and devote all waking hours to them?
Maybe he means have roughly 10x as many? In parenting maybe it's less about being a tiger than putting the child in situations that make them the tiger, imbuing them with the desire and work ethic, not doing it for them.
I thought the same thing. This post stresses the importance of increasing your attention and time to a goal to increase odds of success, while his book encourages more of a laissez-faire approach to parenting and claims that the nature vs nurture argument tips in favor of the former.
I took Latin and French in High School, German in College. In all three I had teachers who emphasized oral proficiency from the very beginning, even in Latin. In French we never saw a printed word for over three months. Hence we learned all three languages a bit like a child learns his first - hearing and speaking. In college and since (as a HS teacher for 42 years) I have been consistently and frequently startled to find out how many teachers teach foreign languages with textbooks and paper activities from the start. I taught English and history and oral practice was a consistent and constant part of my lessons - lots of talking from the students - 'Let me hear the <prepositions/helping verbs/vocabulary for tomorrow/Preamble to the Constitution> one more time' was my daily refrain. We did write too, every day, both in class and for homework.
Two comments. First, none of us can make our spouse happy. The best we can do is reduce or avoid the things we do that make them unhappy, or cause contention. If we can reduce such actions by 10X, we are more likely to find success. but there are some people who just seem determined to be unhappy. I am very blessed NOT to be married to such a person, or to be such a person.
Second, my guiding principle in raising my two sons was, "Teach them to use their moral agency in righteousness." I spent quite a lot of time with them, but regardless of the quantity of time, this principle was always guiding my interactions with them. They are now adults, and are generally conscientious, diligent, fair-minded, and try to do what they see as right. And despite the vicissitudes of life that come to all, they too are generally happy.
Most normal people have no idea what true dedication and effort is like. If you are truly putting in 10x the effort it should come across as obsession.
I do however disagree with this statement:
'“How can I save my marriage? I’m really trying to make my spouse happy.” Again, great idea. You just need to multiply your effort by a factor of ten.'
Sometimes I wonder if Bryan sleeps or does he just go 1000mph 24 hours a day at absolutely full concentration? Does he internalize most folks aren’t physically capable of that?
I, lacking formal econ schooling, am confused by the diagram. It shows supply increasing as a direct function of price, which stands to reason. But it also shows demand declining as price is reduced, which makes no sense to me.
If you want your kids to be Orthodox Jews, you probably should send them to Jewish Orthodox schools. I doubt, though, that denying them internet, or not allowing them to make friends with outsiders, has a substantial impact on the probability they will continue to observe Jewish law and tradition.
Many Jewish orthodox families raise their kids without Internet and many allow them access to the Internet, which makes a perfect field for outcome research.
I suggest you try ten times harder when giving examples, in verifying that you got the statistics correct. I have many times found that giving examples that are not from the speaker's field of expertise, involves mistakes that reduce the credubility of the speaker in the eyes of those who just happen to know the facts.
I love this message, but I think it's largely (mostly?) about doing the RIGHT thing, and that seems to be the harder nut to crack. Any thoughts on this, Bryan?
I do think that a lot of the time we get super lost in the weeds of optimizing when we'd be better served by just doing something, or at least being honest that we're not doing something.
I’m currently reading 10x is easier than 2x. It’s a typical biz self help book but I like the fundamental insight. If I ask you how to get 2x better you’ll give me 10 suggestions of varying quality. If I ask you how to get 10x better you are likely to give me just 1 or 2 of the best answers. It concentrates the mind like betting.
I would share this with my children if it weren’t for the F words. This is good advice - parents should ignore all the nature / nurture studies that say parenting doesn’t matter to kids outcomes. Parents CAN make a difference if they want to.
10X as much isn’t specific enough because it’s agnostic about the amount of work the person was doing before.
Two people could be failing to learn a foreign language. The first may be studying an hour a day, the second may be doing 5 minutes of daily Duolingo. Your prescription would have the first person studying 10 hours per day (probably overkill) and the second doing 50 minutes of Duolingo daily (perhaps still not enough).
It’s just a rule of thumb of course, but people aren’t totally delusional and I expect the person currently studying for 5 minutes has different goals than the one studying an hour (learn some phrases for my upcoming trip vs become fluent, perhaps). And if that’s the case, it could absolutely be true that both need to 10x their study to achieve their respective goals.
The point isn't the formula, it's that most people aren't doing enough.
10 hours a day studying a language is hardly overkill. I learned to speak Portuguese fluently and spent at least 10 hours a day on it. The question isn't whether those hours will be useful, it's whether you have the hours.
Stop reading blogs and start practicing.
I do 20 times more blog-reading than I did 2020. SO HAPPY :D
I’m a violinist practicing to win an audition for a symphony orchestra. Four hours of practice a day seems reasonable. But apparently I need to warp the laws of physics to log 40 hrs/day if I wanna make the grade! 😫 This is terrible news...
log 40 is easy! Its only 1.6 hr/day! Far less than what you were doing previously.
*Apologies for the terrible joke*
😂 I used to be a math teacher--I like it
Bryan’s rule of thumb is also valuable for discovering one’s limitations. If you are doing all you can, and 10x simply isn’t possible, then one should probably conclude that goal isn’t achievable (I don’t mean to suggest that this is the case for you). Not everyone who wants to be a professional athlete, artist, musician, academic, etc has the ability to do so no matter how many quality hours they devote to their craft.
If Lingling can, you also can!
Actually you need to be 10x more effective. You may be able to do that in half the time.
Which is an emply platitude.
"Just be 10x more effective".
"Gee, thanks, how didn't I think of that?"
Golly, I don’t know why you didn’t think of that. Chill!
Too true. I’ve been exploring a lot to find more effective practice methods. I feel like I’ve plateaued for over a year and really need a breakthrough. However, learning to be more effective also takes time. So, I think overall Bryan’s observations hold up. Maximizing time expended with no attention to quality is obviously ineffective, but even increasing efficacy takes time.
Ling Ling practice 40 hours a day and he is disappointed in you.
I came across this paper today, which seems to say the opposite of your point: https://academics.hamilton.edu/documents/themundanityofexcellence.pdf.
At least for competitive swimming, the differences between amateurs and professionals are qualitative, not quantitative. The professionals aren't just practicing harder - they practice in very different ways. The author classifies the differences in three categories: technique, discipline, and attitude.
The reason it might seem like hard work is most important is related to Simpson's paradox. Most people will gravitate toward competitions against opponents with similar ability. And within a given level, the winners are probably the people who work the hardest. But according to this article, working harder within the same basic strategy isn't enough to reach the next level.
I think perhaps the reason for this is that people generally don't know what the crucial ingredient is to be successful - even if it seems very simple to those who are already successful.
Innate ability matters too. Phelps was a phenomenal swimmer because of his combination of hardwork, quality training, and physical attributes.
And focus
Josh Foer ‘s book Moonwalking with Einstein makes the same point in the context of improving one’s capacity to memorize
This is a very interesting post (not unusual for you, of course). But isn't it in some tension with your argument that people should have more kids because it's easier than they believe...that they don't have to be Tiger Moms and devote all waking hours to them?
Maybe he means have roughly 10x as many? In parenting maybe it's less about being a tiger than putting the child in situations that make them the tiger, imbuing them with the desire and work ethic, not doing it for them.
I thought the same thing. This post stresses the importance of increasing your attention and time to a goal to increase odds of success, while his book encourages more of a laissez-faire approach to parenting and claims that the nature vs nurture argument tips in favor of the former.
I took Latin and French in High School, German in College. In all three I had teachers who emphasized oral proficiency from the very beginning, even in Latin. In French we never saw a printed word for over three months. Hence we learned all three languages a bit like a child learns his first - hearing and speaking. In college and since (as a HS teacher for 42 years) I have been consistently and frequently startled to find out how many teachers teach foreign languages with textbooks and paper activities from the start. I taught English and history and oral practice was a consistent and constant part of my lessons - lots of talking from the students - 'Let me hear the <prepositions/helping verbs/vocabulary for tomorrow/Preamble to the Constitution> one more time' was my daily refrain. We did write too, every day, both in class and for homework.
Two comments. First, none of us can make our spouse happy. The best we can do is reduce or avoid the things we do that make them unhappy, or cause contention. If we can reduce such actions by 10X, we are more likely to find success. but there are some people who just seem determined to be unhappy. I am very blessed NOT to be married to such a person, or to be such a person.
Second, my guiding principle in raising my two sons was, "Teach them to use their moral agency in righteousness." I spent quite a lot of time with them, but regardless of the quantity of time, this principle was always guiding my interactions with them. They are now adults, and are generally conscientious, diligent, fair-minded, and try to do what they see as right. And despite the vicissitudes of life that come to all, they too are generally happy.
Most normal people have no idea what true dedication and effort is like. If you are truly putting in 10x the effort it should come across as obsession.
I do however disagree with this statement:
'“How can I save my marriage? I’m really trying to make my spouse happy.” Again, great idea. You just need to multiply your effort by a factor of ten.'
Sometimes I wonder if Bryan sleeps or does he just go 1000mph 24 hours a day at absolutely full concentration? Does he internalize most folks aren’t physically capable of that?
Brian, are you saying marginal utility of effort is increasing rather than diminishing?
No, you just have to push far into diminishing returns.
Great advice. I would offer, 'Never stop learning' or at least trying to improve, whatever your passion.
I, lacking formal econ schooling, am confused by the diagram. It shows supply increasing as a direct function of price, which stands to reason. But it also shows demand declining as price is reduced, which makes no sense to me.
The quantity of demand (x axis) is increasing as the price (y axis) decreases
True dat. I get it now. Sorry; never mind!
P and Q are backwards from the way any engineer or scientist would do it.
FWIW I had the same initial response. Maybe that's why the diagram doesn't get taught ;) it needs to be 10x better.
If you want your kids to be Orthodox Jews, you probably should send them to Jewish Orthodox schools. I doubt, though, that denying them internet, or not allowing them to make friends with outsiders, has a substantial impact on the probability they will continue to observe Jewish law and tradition.
Many Jewish orthodox families raise their kids without Internet and many allow them access to the Internet, which makes a perfect field for outcome research.
I suggest you try ten times harder when giving examples, in verifying that you got the statistics correct. I have many times found that giving examples that are not from the speaker's field of expertise, involves mistakes that reduce the credubility of the speaker in the eyes of those who just happen to know the facts.
If you want credibility in the eyes in the eyes of those reading your comment, I suggest you try ten times harder to spell 'credibility' correctly.
I love this message, but I think it's largely (mostly?) about doing the RIGHT thing, and that seems to be the harder nut to crack. Any thoughts on this, Bryan?
I do think that a lot of the time we get super lost in the weeds of optimizing when we'd be better served by just doing something, or at least being honest that we're not doing something.
Agreed, experimenting is better than hypothesizing in a vacuum. I think that's a partial answer.
I’m currently reading 10x is easier than 2x. It’s a typical biz self help book but I like the fundamental insight. If I ask you how to get 2x better you’ll give me 10 suggestions of varying quality. If I ask you how to get 10x better you are likely to give me just 1 or 2 of the best answers. It concentrates the mind like betting.
I would share this with my children if it weren’t for the F words. This is good advice - parents should ignore all the nature / nurture studies that say parenting doesn’t matter to kids outcomes. Parents CAN make a difference if they want to.