avatarAndrew Rodwin

Summary

The provided text challenges the universality of the 10,000-Hour Rule for achieving mastery, emphasizing the importance of context, teaching, early specialization, and individual interest and talent.

Abstract

The article critically examines the popularized concept of the 10,000-Hour Rule, introduced by Malcolm Gladwell in his book "Outliers," which posits that 10,000 hours of practice is necessary to achieve world-class expertise. It argues that this rule is overly simplified and requires nuanced consideration, such as the presence of a skilled mentor, the age at which one begins specialized practice, and the type of learning environment. Drawing on examples from sports, music, art, and science, the article illustrates that early specialization is not always the path to success, nor is it the only way to achieve mastery. It highlights the stories of individuals like Vincent Van Gogh, Roger Federer, and others who achieved greatness without adhering to the strict guidelines of the 10,000-Hour Rule, suggesting that a broader education and diverse experiences can lead to innovation and success. The text also discusses the concepts of kind and wicked learning environments, the value of generalization versus specialization, and the importance of match quality in career satisfaction. Furthermore, it touches on the cultural and political implications of a rapidly changing world where general conceptual knowledge is increasingly valued over simple procedural knowledge.

Opinions

  • The author believes that the 10,000-Hour Rule, as popularized, overlooks critical factors such as the need for a highly skilled teacher and the type of learning environment.
  • Early specialization, as seen in the case of Tiger Woods, is not a one-size-fits-all approach; the author uses the example of Lulu, daughter of Amy Chua, to show that interest and enjoyment in the practice are crucial.
  • The article suggests that a broad range of experiences can be beneficial, citing the success of late bloomers and individuals who excelled in multiple fields before finding their true calling.
  • The author posits that the current educational focus on processes should be balanced with teaching concepts, especially in a world that favors generalists who can adapt and innovate across various domains.
  • The text criticizes the oversimplification of the 10,000-Hour Rule and cautions against its blind application, especially in parenting and education.
  • It emphasizes the importance of "match quality" in finding a suitable career and suggests that trying different jobs is a practical approach to discovering one's passion.
  • The author argues for the value of interdisciplinary knowledge and the rich opportunities that lie at the intersection of different fields.
  • The article advocates for a flexible approach to learning and career development, suggesting that the ability to adapt and learn from failures is key to thriving in a complex and changing world.
  • The author implies that the cultural and political turmoil of today can be attributed, in part, to the struggle between those who benefit from a more static, process-oriented world and those who thrive in a dynamic, concept-driven environment.

Everything You Need to Know Isn’t Taught in Kindergarten

How Vincent Van Gogh shortcut the 10,000-Hour Rule

Public domain, from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vincent_van_Gogh_-_Self-Portrait_-_Google_Art_Project_(454045).jpg

The 10,000-Hour Rule You’ve Read About 10,000 Times

Since Malcolm Gladwell popularized the 10,000-Hour Rule in his book Outliers, it’s become the conventional explanation of what produces world-class talent. As Gladwell wrote, 10,000 hours of “correct” practice distinguishes a highly skilled golfer, perhaps a club pro or someone at the margins of a professional tour, from a world-class golfer. Or painter. Or pianist.

Gladwell is sometimes criticized for oversimplifying the research he references. So it goes with the 10,000-Hour Rule.¹ What Gladwell omitted is that 10,000 hours of practice was found to be significant only if guided by a highly skilled teacher, customizing what, when, and how the student practiced. Strike one.

The Tiger Mother Growls

But there’s another misconception about how the 10,000-Hour Rule works. Consider the child-rearing techniques described by Amy Chua in Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. Chua adopted a very Chinese (Chua’s adjective) style of rigorous, structured parenting. This included requiring her daughters, Sophia and Lulu, to practice a musical instrument intensively from a very young age.

For Sophia, this technique “worked.” She performed at Carnegie Hall as a teenager and became an accomplished musician. For Lulu, this “failed.” She rebelled against her mother and stopped playing completely. This is neither an endorsement nor indictment of Chua’s parenting style. According to multiple sources, Sophia and Lulu are happy and successful. They feel gratitude, not resentment.

Rather, what happened with Lulu is an indictment of the principle that to be a world-class expert, one must not only begin rigorous practice when very young but that given sufficient talent, the outcome is somehow guaranteed. Intense musical practice matched Sophia’s interests, not Lulu’s. Without that interest, 10,000 hours is just a measure of time. It doesn’t work. Strike two.

Lulu learned, by empirical experience, that the dedication required to be a world-class musician was not for her. That’s a success, not a failure, but it only happened because she was stubborn enough to stick to her guns. If there’s a failure, it belongs to Tiger Mom Amy, not Lulu, for not pulling the plug on her daughter’s music practice much sooner, a concept popularized in Silicon Valley as “fail fast.” Tough love has to be smart too.

Let’s explore some more “fine print” about the 10,000-Hour Rule by looking at a pair of superstar athletes and one of the world’s greatest painters.

The Tiger and The Maestro

In his 2019 book Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World, David Epstein compares the early lives of Tiger Woods and Roger Federer.

It’s widely known that Tiger Woods was obsessed with golf since he could walk. At the age of two, he appeared on television with Bob Hope, Jimmy Stewart, and Mike Douglas, demonstrating how to swing a golf club. At three, playing nine holes, Woods shot a 48. At the age of 15, he became the youngest winner of the U.S. Junior Amateur Championship. Woods had natural talent, tremendous interest, and a father who coached his son until he was five and then found top-quality professional coaches, all of which are part of the ante for the 10,000-Hour Rule.

What about The Maestro, Roger Federer? There’s an apocryphal myth that Federer followed a similar path.

He invested his energies on tennis alone, leaving behind all other sports. At the age of 14, he started playing tournaments, practicing and conditioning himself to become a professional.²

That’s spinning it. Federer decided to focus on tennis when he was twelve. That’s a full ten years later than when Woods swung that club on television. Federer played plenty of tennis when younger — along with basketball, football, and badminton. According to Epstein, Federer credits his early participation in other sports with making him a better tennis player.

There’s nothing exceptional about a tennis superstar dedicating himself to tennis at the ripe old age of twelve. A mere six years later, Federer made the top 100 list of tennis players. To squeeze 10,000 hours into those six years, Federer would have had to practice every day for over 4.5 hours, no exceptions.

Vincent Van Gogh Was an Abject Failure

Age twelve is nothing compared to Vincent Van Gogh. As Epstein explains, Van Gogh did not focus on painting until his late twenties, after a series of failures at other professions and arts, including drawing. Until painting, Van Gogh failed miserably at everything he tried.

Very different than Tiger Woods, who by 27 had already won eight major championships. Yet Vincent Van Gogh is one of the most famous painters in history. In 1990, Van Gogh’s Portrait du Docteur Gachet, sold for $75 million, the equivalent of over $150 million today. Van Gogh was decades older than Woods when he chose to paint seriously.

Federer and Van Gogh are not exceptions.

  • Misty Copeland is a principal dancer in American Ballet Theatre (ABT), one of the leading classical ballet companies in the United States. Copeland started ballet at 13.
  • Hakeem Olajuwon, rated by NBC Sports as the fifth-best center in basketball history, didn’t touch a basketball until he was 15.
  • George Green was a miller in 19th century England. At age 35, he published An Essay on the Application of Mathematical Analysis to the Theories of Electricity and Magnetism, now a pillar of mathematical physics. Green had one year of formal schooling when he was eight.
  • Anna Moses, known as “Grandma” Moses, is a renowned artist, who began painting at 78. Bill Traylor, a former slave and later a sharecropper, began drawing in his 80s. Traylor’s work has been featured in museums, films, and written media. Both artists were entirely self-taught.

Strike three.

Why This Matters to All of Us

The 10,000-Hour rule depends on context.

  • All those hours of practice have to be “correct,” requiring the direction of a highly skilled teacher.
  • It doesn’t have to begin in early childhood.
  • It’s not the only route to mastery.
  • Whether it even works depends on the skill being learned.

These distinctions may seem important only to the tiny subset of people who seek — for themselves or their children — world-class mastery. But there are lessons for all of us. Lessons about specialization vs. generalization, concepts vs. processes, order vs. turmoil, how these dualities apply to our lives, and how we can make smarter choices based on what we’ve learned. This topic weaves a fascinating web.

Kind and Wicked Learning Environments

Let’s drill into that last qualification of the 10,000-Hour Rule — the characteristics of the skill being learned. Epstein describes Kind and Wicked learning environments, referencing work done by R.M. Hogarth and colleagues, and documented in Hogarth’s 2001 book, Educating Intuition.

Kind learning environments are characterized by repeated judgments and feedback that is both immediate and clear. Under these conditions, people acquire appropriate responses, i.e., intuitions. On the contrary, in wicked learning environments, feedback may be missing, slow, distorted or biased in other ways and the acquisition of appropriate responses is compromised.³

Golf is a kind learning environment. So is tennis. And surgery. In all of those cases, specialized experience is extremely relevant. You don’t want a polymath to insert your arterial stent. You want a cardiac surgeon who has done it six hundred times. And if a surgeon errs, she is definitely going to get feedback. If you’re on a Davis Cup team, you want to play with someone who has chipped onto the green so often they could do it in their sleep.

Golf and surgery have nothing in common with the world Van Gogh lived in. Van Gogh lived in a wicked learning environment. Not only did Van Gogh not get the “clear and immediate feedback” of knowing if the stent insertion worked, but for most of his life, he got no feedback other than stark reminders that he failed at everything he tried.

By the time Van Gogh began painting in earnest, he was feeling his way toward something entirely new. There was no external validation. His work only became popular near the end of his life. The extensive practice helped him execute what he intended to accomplish, but capturing brilliant new ways of seeing the world had nothing to do with a 10,000-Hour Rule.

Cage Match 1 — Specialization vs. Generalization

In a kind learning environment, specialization has enormous value. The 10,000-hour Rule is shorthand for an intense type of specialization. Think golfers and surgeons. In a wicked learning environment, generalization has enormous value. It’s not possible to develop deep intuition based on practice. Instead, the broader experience that comes with generalization allows people to use techniques like analogical thinking to solve problems that can’t be solved the way you insert a stent. Think sports journalist or webpage developer.

That doesn’t mean you can succeed in those jobs with no domain experience. But at some point well short of 10,000 hours, domain experience will reach diminishing returns and other factors, like creative problem solving that arises from conceptual thinking, and borrowing via analogies with other domains will be far more important.

Desperately Seeking Match Quality

Match quality refers to how well someone is suited for a given job or career.

According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, most people have ten different jobs before age forty.

Life has changed since George Green wrote his famous math treatise. Green was a miller because his father bought a mill and needed someone to run it. Green hated running the mill, but if you weren’t an aristocrat in 19th century England, you didn’t have a lot of discretion about how you survived.

People like Tiger Woods, blessed with knowing what they love early in life and able to focus on it, can afford to specialize early. Most of us don’t have that luxury. It may take ten jobs before we start to figure out what we really want to do. Or more. In that context, early specialization isn’t optimal.

Most people need to try a lot of things out before they know what they love. This assumes people have the financial freedom to explore. For someone stuck in poverty, the sole priority is paying bills. Match quality is a pipe dream. For those fortunate enough to have options, the only way to explore is to try things.

Generalization has some key advantages here.

  1. If you aren’t certain where you’re headed, generalization will serve you better than specialization. You’ll be able to use what you learn across domains.
  2. The more things you do, the more broad experience you accumulate, and the more you can apply your generalized knowledge as you progress.
  3. Jobs today increasingly require generalized knowledge.

Let’s poke at that a bit. Consider a 19th-century shepherd vs. a webpage developer today.

  • The shepherd needed a lot of specialized knowledge about sheep, weather, and terrain in a very specific area. You probably had to be physically tough, stoic, and able to deal with isolation. To succeed, you’d have had to know an awful lot in a narrow domain.
  • The web developer needs to know HTML, and possibly Javascript and CSS. Depending on their scope of responsibility, they may need a thorough grasp of software engineering and related technical concepts. They need to be able to work effectively with other people. They need to know how users interact with web pages. They need some understanding of colors, fonts, and design principles. They need to understand how to work on long-term projects, how to effectively manage their time, how to report out progress, how to ask for help, how to provide help to others, and much, much more.

We still depend heavily on specialization. Remember stents. But acquiring the specialized knowledge to be a doctor or nurse is a huge investment. Before you make that investment, it’s a good idea to make sure it’s worth it. Trying jobs that will tell you if Medicine is for you before enrolling in medical school is highly practical. You can’t discern the match quality of healthcare by reading about it. You need to test the preconceptions you have about a career in medicine.

Some people specialize early, and later realize their specialty isn’t a match for them. Someone willing to shift may find enormous opportunities because they have a specialty.

Consider a trained physician who decides that she really prefers software. The demand for people who understand both software and medicine is enormous. That physician may parlay her medical background into creating AI software that assists medical diagnosis. She is vastly more qualified than someone who has a master’s degree in computer science but no knowledge of healthcare. In our increasingly complex world, intersections are rich with opportunity.

Fire Bullets, Then Cannonballs

Jim Collins described the concept “Fire Bullets, Then Cannonballs” in his 2011 book, Great by Choice.

First, you fire bullets (low-cost, low-risk, low-distraction experiments) to figure out what will work — calibrating your line of sight by taking small shots. Then, once you have empirical validation, you fire a cannonball (concentrating resources into a big bet) on the calibrated line of sight.⁴

The concept is similar to “fail fast,” the software development method known as Agile, and what Epstein calls “short term planning.” In an environment that is new and/or rapidly changing, it’s far more efficient to test, and then invest.

The same is true of pursuing match quality. In a complex world, few people know when they are 18 or 22 what sort of work interests them. For people who can afford to do so, the most effective method is to try a lot of things until you find one that feels right. That opportunity wasn’t available to George Green but had it been, he would not have remained a miller.

Cage Match 2 — Concepts vs. Processes

Epstein draws a careful pedagogical distinction between teaching concepts vs. processes. For instance, a surgeon learns the process of inserting a stent, while a public health expert might learn concepts of evaluating health in populations.

Early on, at least in the United States, most teachers focus on processes. Epstein contends that in the early years, learning concepts is more valuable because the world is a wicked learning environment.

That doesn’t mean processes don’t matter. You want a surgeon inserting your stent to have mastered the process. You don’t care how she conceptualizes public health. The value of learning concepts vs. processes can’t be divorced from context. When kids are in school, they are usually better off learning concepts from which they can generalize, rather than highly specific processes which may be needed to complete a task but don’t generalize beyond the task.

Often. Not always.

Learning multiplication tables has value, especially short-term. It’s useful to know that 8 x 9 = 72. In the long run, learning multiplication tables is far less important than understanding multiplication. But you still need to know the tables.

Cage Match 3 — Foxes vs. Hedgehogs

In his book about the art of forecasting, The Signal and the Noise, Nate Silver discusses two types of forecasters, citing research done by psychologist Philip Tetlock.

  • Hedgehogs believe “in governing principles about the world that behave as though they were physical laws.”
  • Foxes “are scrappy creatures who believe in a plethora of little ideas and in taking a multitude of approaches toward a problem.”

The risk of being a hedgehog, and the reason why their forecasts so often fail, is that they ignore new information that conflicts with their static view of the world. In a chaotic world, that’s a huge liability.

Foxes use a form of probabilistic thinking developed in the 18th century by Thomas Bayes, known as Bayesian reasoning. To predict outcomes, Bayesian reasoning calculates the odds of many possible outcomes. As more is learned, the forecaster weights the importance of the information and updates the prediction accordingly. Predictions based on Bayesian reasoning can fail, but Silver contends that typically occurs because intermediate calculations depend on flawed assumptions.

To see foxes in action, look at Silver’s website fivethirtyeight.com.

To see hedgehogs in action, turn on any cable news program, and wait for an expert talking head to start prognosticating. They are domain experts, there is never any follow-up on what they predicted, they don’t admit to making mistakes, and they are almost always wrong.

The larger point we’re building on is that the world is increasingly complex and chaotic. In an isolated domain like golf or stent insertion or chess or at least chess prior to the advent of the chess-playing supercomputer Big Blue, natural talent plus properly structured practice over an appropriate period of time is a reliable recipe for success.

Outside of such domains, that approach doesn’t work. Which is exactly the point Nicholas Taleb makes so eloquently in his book Antifragile: Things That Gain From Disorder.

Antifragility — Handle With Recklessness

It’s difficult to summarize Taleb’s book, as it’s loaded with concepts and builds on his previous work. But Taleb expresses his key point upfront.

“Some things benefit from shocks; they thrive and grow when exposed to volatility, randomness, disorder, and stressors and love adventure, risk, and uncertainty. Yet, in spite of the ubiquity of the phenomenon, there is no word for the exact opposite of fragile. Let us call it antifragile. Antifragility is beyond resilience or robustness. The resilient resists shocks and stays the same; the antifragile gets better”.

Volatility, randomness, disorder, risk, and uncertainty describe a wicked learning environment, and existence itself. There’s no meaningful level of randomness in chess or golf. Those are kind learning environments because they are closed, insulated from the chaos of existence.

A particularly disturbing example of antifragility is Covid 19. As the virus randomly mutates, it adapts to “enemies,” like vaccines. There may be no consciousness involved, but nevertheless, the virus demonstrates anti-fragility. Without random mutations, the virus can’t adapt. Evolution is anti-fragile.

Anti-fragility is a powerful property. Consider Van Gogh, who

  • Struggled with depression, psychotic episodes, delusions, alcoholism, and poverty.
  • Failed as an art dealer, teacher, and missionary.
  • Lived in his 20s with an alcoholic single mother, who was also a prostitute.
  • Was one of 17 students ordered to repeat a year of instruction at the Academy of Fine Arts he attended, in Antwerp.

Van Gogh was not rigorously trained as a painter. Throughout most of his life, he never even held a brush. Yet the violent, chaotic turmoil of his life produced a magnificent painter. That’s antifragile!

There are less extreme examples. Consider trauma therapists.

People who have processed the effects of past trauma — often with the help of a therapist of their own — can become excellent counselors … Posttraumatic growth and healing from the experience can foster empathy and strengthen coping skills.⁵

According to Allison Pow, a licensed professional counselor in North Carolina and adjunct professor at both Wake Forest University and the University of North Carolina at Greensboro,

“Going through trauma is a very unique experience [through which] you understand the way your brain works and your body reacts. That is hard for someone to understand who hasn’t gone through that. I have had some students who were very resilient because they have been forced to cope [in traumatic situations] in the past. The reason a lot of people become very, very good counselors is their life experience.” ⁶

Antifragility can help make a great trauma therapist.

Culture and Politics — Handle With Care

Today’s cultural and political chaos is complicated, and can’t be reduced to a single explanation. But one way to look at the current mess we’re in is through the lens of specialization vs. generalization, concepts vs. processes, and order vs. turmoil.

In the US in the 1950s, there was relative stability.

  • Whites ruled with minimal challenge and reaped most of the benefits.
  • Men had far more power and opportunities than women.
  • There were lots of blue-collar jobs, and employment was generally stable. You could make good money without a college degree.
  • Mainstream culture was largely conservative, white, and homogenous.

Compare that to today.

  • White privilege may still be extensive, but it’s under siege. There is a significant divide between whites with and without higher education.
  • Men still have more power and opportunities, but significantly less so, and that’s also eroding.
  • A lot of high-paying, high-prestige blue-collar work has disappeared in lieu of low-paying, low-prestige service jobs. People without a college degree are at a huge disadvantage in the labor market.
  • Culture wars are increasingly harsh and public.

Today’s economy strongly favors people who are educated, either in specialized professions like Engineering, Law, or Medicine or with liberal arts degrees who can parlay knowledge of general concepts into jobs that increasingly require it. A welder needs to master a lot of procedural knowledge about welding. A product marketer at a high-tech company has far less procedural knowledge than a welder, but far more conceptual knowledge about psychology, customer needs, business, and technology.

Processes tend to get automated. Sophisticated processes, like transplanting a heart, are not easily automated. Simpler processes, like welding, are much more easily automated. Making a living off of simple process knowledge is extremely fragile.

If you are a white male in his late 50s without a college degree, and you were a highly paid welder working for General Motors until robots replaced you seven years ago, how would you see the world?

  • Nothing seems stable.
  • All the expertise you painfully accumulated about welding is no longer valued.
  • The culture you grew up in has changed radically.
  • Your education consisted primarily of learning processes. You weren’t trained to think conceptually, even though today’s economy values conceptual training. The process training that is valued, like medicine or electrical engineering, requires an enormous amount of money and time, and those areas also require a significant amount of specialized conceptual knowledge.

Why not turn to Donald Trump and the House Liberty Caucus for answers? They are saying all of the things you want to hear.

  • The country has been ruined by educated liberal elites.
  • We need a return to the old-fashioned values that made this country great.
  • Immigrants are stealing your jobs.
  • Big Government ruined your life.

The MAGA movement is both fragile and antifragile. On the one hand, individuals are incapable, perhaps through no fault of their own, of dealing constructively with the accelerating rapid changes sweeping the world. That’s fragile. On the other hand, the MAGA movement is nurtured by chaos. Consider the chaos around the 2020 elections. Democracy is fragile but authoritarian reaction is antifragile. The parallels with Hitler’s rise during Weimar Germany are obvious and inescapable.

In the end, the MAGA movement is doomed, just as the Nazi party was. The forces of history won’t tolerate reaction forever, because innovation isn’t going to just stop. The only question is how much destruction will occur, and how long authoritarianism will last, before an eventual return to progress and democracy.

Lessons and Choices

Let’s distill some lessons we can leverage in our daily lives to make better choices and decisions.

  1. The 10,000-Hour Rule is contextual. Use it accordingly.
  2. This distinction is particularly important for parents who have outsized ambitions for their children. You could watch the movie King Richard and falsely conclude that it’s a blueprint for success, without considering the vast number of dependencies required to develop two sisters from a poor neighborhood into tennis superstars.
  3. Sticking with a plan is not always the best option. It’s important to distinguish between quitting because something is a) hard from b) a poor fit. We place a premium on perseverance but its value is contextual. Perseverance in the context of poor fit is self-destructive. Grit is a misunderstood buzzword.
  4. Context is important when applying rules, concepts, and values.
  5. In a world whose pace of change is accelerating, general knowledge and conceptual thinking have increasing value, while in some domains, process thinking and specialized knowledge remain crucial. Those domains are typically highly sophisticated and require extensive training.
  6. Interdisciplinary teams tend to be more effective at solving big, hard problems than single-discipline teams.
  7. Interdisciplinary individuals are even better than interdisciplinary teams at “big” creative innovations. Interdisciplinary teams are better than a team of specialized experts. Specialized experts excel at incremental innovation.
  8. Whether you call it fail fast or fire bullets then cannonballs, it’s a good idea to test and iterate, whether you’re building a stone wall or seeking your passion.
  9. For school-aged children, learning concepts is generally more valuable than learning processes. This is also highly contextual and can’t be treated as a simplistic rule. Depending on such variables as the stage of cognitive development, prior knowledge, or culture, focusing on processes may make more sense than focusing on concepts. It’s easy to ridicule The New Math of the 1960s, which emphasized concepts, but if its execution was poor, its intent was spot on. The New Math failed because it was a cannonball without preceding bullets. It was an enormous change that required iteration. And it naively dismissed context.
  10. Making a living off of simple process knowledge is extremely fragile.
  11. The accelerating pace of change which is making general conceptual knowledge increasingly valuable is a factor in the cultural and political unrest plaguing us today. You’re not going to sway someone reacting to that change by arguing with them, because the change is actually threatening. Retraining people whose skills have become obsolete would help, but since we have done a poor job of teaching people concepts in the first place, that would be a massive undertaking.
  12. If you’re interested in forecasts, favor foxes over hedgehogs. If you are forecasting, use Bayesian reasoning when possible. If you watch domain expert talking heads making predictions on cable news, assume they are wrong.
  13. Expecting someone who is young and inexperienced to find a lasting career well suited for them is unrealistic. It could take years, or decades, and include many paths that seem to be dead ends but are actually steps on a journey.
  14. Intersections of traditionally siloed disciplines are rich with opportunity.
  15. There’s no substitute for empirical experience.

This article borrows heavily from David Epstein’s Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World. Many of the examples and ideas are Epstein’s.

¹ https://www.edsurge.com/news/2020-05-05-researcher-behind-10-000-hour-rule-says-good-teaching-matters-not-just-practice

² https://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/roger-federer-2741.php

³ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_M._Hogarth

https://www.jimcollins.com/concepts/fire-bullets-then-cannonballs.html

https://ct.counseling.org/2018/05/past-trauma-in-counselors-in-training-help-or-hindrance/

https://ct.counseling.org/2018/05/past-trauma-in-counselors-in-training-help-or-hindrance/

Learning
Self Improvement
Sports
Careers
Psychology
Recommended from ReadMedium