Compare and Contrast of Rhetoric Methods

¶ … Hour Rule

The author of this report has been asked to compare and contrast the rhetorical flair as it relates to different articles that assess and analyze what is known as the 10,000-hour rule. For the uninformed, the 10,000 rule states that it basically takes about 10,000 hours for a person to become a master at a discipline or trade. Easy examples to point to include mastery of the violin, writing of books/novels and computer programming. Indeed, these are some of the many examples used by authors Sandman and Bradley as they analyze and poke holes in the 10,000-hour rule. While Sandman and Bradley come to much the same conclusion, Bradley's use of logos was clearly the wiser choice for the argument being made and Bradley's overall technique of varied examples and clear explains was superior.

Analysis

There are, of course, three different approaches to rhetoric. Those approaches are known as ethos, logos and pathos. When assessing the two works to be compared and contrasted for this report, it becomes quite clear which person is doing what approach. First to be briefly summarized would be the work of Jared Sandman. As noted before, he asserts that the 10,000-hour rule is fundamentally flawed. As becomes quite clear upon reading his work, he is relying on his own authority and experience to make this point. Thus, Sandman is clearly using the ethos approach to rhetoric and speech. For example, Sandman points to the idea that it took about 250,000 words written to get to a level of writing that was publishable. He then goes on to state that another 250,000 words put him at a fairly good level of adeptness. He further states that using the 10,000-hour rule is a little on the high side. He states that he writes about two pages an hour. That would mean that he would write about 20,000 pages in 10,000 hours. This is the equivalent of fifty full novels of work. To make it clear that Sandman is relying on his own authority and expertise, he states that someone who does not have writing down by the fiftieth book is clearly doing something wrong. He clearly asserts that the true "line" of competency was much sooner than that for him. Sandman concludes by offering his own model, that being the 1,000 day rule where people write for an hour a day. Over three years, this would bring a person to the half a million word model that he espouses in his article (Sandman, 2013).

On the other hand, Bradley takes an entirely different approach and this is clearly one based on logos rather than ethos or pathos. This becomes clear in two major forms. First, Mr. Bradley uses a number of examples that have nothing to do with him. For example, he points to the fact that the Beatles were able to tour and play at shows in Hamburg night after night and this allowed them to get a ton of practice before they reached the big time later in the decade. He also points to Bill Gates and the fact that he had access to computers in a day where they were very rare for the common individual to possess and use to the level he did. Obviously, Bill Gates is now a billionaire and it is due in large part to his early and persistent dedication to honing his craft. He also points to how long it tends to take (key word is "tend") to master an instrument like the guitar. When Bradley does point to himself, he is almost self-deprecating. He points to the fact that he has messed around playing guitar for years but that he is far from a master and that people might suggest he put on headphones until he is a little bit better. Bradley also breaks down the numbers of what it takes to practice 10,000 hours over a certain period of time and then he does the same thing for 20,000 hours. He also asserts that people can attain mastery in less time but that the general rule is that persistent and long-term practice that is focused, consistent and properly attuned is the way to mastery. However, he also says that learning some skills does not take remotely 10,000 hours. He points to memorizing digits as an example, saying that 500 to 1,000 hours is more than enough to become very good at that (Bradley, 2012).

When comparing the two, there are some common threads and some obviously differences. One obvious difference is that they take different general rhetorical approaches. Sandman relies on his own credibility while Bradley ostensibly made a great effort to avoid that. At the same time, they both use their logic to some degree to poke holes in the 10,000 rule. They also both seem to assert that while the 10,000 rule is good as a general idea, it should not be taken literally. Meaning, not all subjects are going to take 10,000 hours to learn and the pace of learning will obviously be different based on how quickly one gets to 10,000 hours, or whatever yardstick someone wishes to use. Bradley supports this further by stating that 10,000 hours is an average rather than an arbitrary figure that has to be met for someone to have legitimacy and competency. In short, neither man asserts the rule is wrong outright but they both assert that it should be taken with a grain of salt (Sandman, 2013; Bradley, 2012).