The 10,000 Hour Rule Is a Myth, Part 2: Does Deliberate Practice Create Experts?

In Part 2 of our exploration of Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-Römer’s landmark 1993 paper, we turn to Study 2 and its comparison of expert and amateur pianists.

The experts practiced more and performed better on piano-related tasks. But their advantage did not extend to general reaction-time and cognitive-motor tests. That distinction helps us understand what years of practice may develop—and what these studies can actually establish.

In this episode, we explore:

The 5.2-hour overestimate: Both expert and amateur pianists overestimated their weekly practice compared with their practice diaries.

7,606 versus 1,606 hours: Estimated cumulative practice by age 18 differed substantially between experts and amateurs. These were group averages, not a universal threshold for expertise.

Task-specific advantages: The experts’ stronger performance appeared in skills related to piano practice, rather than a general motor advantage.

Starting early and catching up: Earlier starts create more time to accumulate practice. Closing that gap becomes difficult when experienced performers continue practicing too.

Expertise as something acquired: We examine the authors’ argument that extended deliberate practice can explain abilities often attributed to innate talent, including their discussion of physical adaptation and perfect pitch.

The causality caveat: A strong relationship between practice and performance does not establish that practice alone caused the observed differences.

Starting later does not put improvement out of reach. The authors’ model allows for substantial gains when deliberate practice begins, while recognizing the demands of closing a large accumulated practice gap.

Next, we’ll continue this series with more contemporary research and responses to the original paper.

Until next time, Keep Singing Smart.

Referenced research

Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406. Read the paper via its DOI.