3 ms·

(Example: remember that "10,000 hours to expertise" thing that Malcolm Gladwell was pushing a few years ago? Forget about it; the whole thing failed to replicat

by pjscott 10y ago

(Example: remember that "10,000 hours to expertise" thing that Malcolm Gladwell was pushing a few years ago? Forget about it; the whole thing failed to replicate. And forget about Malcolm Gladwell in general, since he makes a career of this sort of borderline-fraud.)

LionessLover 10y ago
Your criticism of Gladwell is oddly unspecific given the nature of your criticism. You fail to state what exactly you criticize in his 10,000 hour statement. When I read the kind of criticism you seem to be referring to, like this one: http://www.businessinsider.com/new-study-destroys-malcolm-gladwells-10000-rule-2014-7?IR=T http://www.businessinsider.com/new-study-destroys-malcolm-gl... I notice that the examples are silly: They equate "success" with "mastery". For example, they write > Then there's a band like the Sex Pistols, who took the world by storm even though Sid Vicious could barely play his bass. So they themselves say he "could barely play his bass"! How does that refute the mastery theory? The Richard Branson example is about "success" and not "mastery" too - I bet Richard DID have "10,000 hours" of business practice. Not that Gladwell made any specific predictions either AFAIR. I wish the people criticizing his work would made an example of how to be better - but it seems the criticism itself sets new low points in quality. "What Malcolm Gladwell REALLY Said About The 10,000 Hour Rule": http://problogservice.com/2012/03/15/what-malcolm-gladwell-really-said-about-the-10000-hour-rule/ http://problogservice.com/2012/03/15/what-malcolm-gladwell-r... > “Malcolm Gladwell said you have to have 10000 hours in a subject to be an expert,” they will often state. The problem is, they’re repeating a misquote from someone else who has never read the book. Also note how Gladwell quotes scientists - so any criticism should be directed at those: > “The emerging picture from such studies is that ten thousand hours of practice is required to achieve the level of mastery associated with being a world-class expert—in anything,” writes the neurologist Daniel Levitin. — p. 40
mpweiher 10y ago
Oh, and even the stuff that was true was completely misinterpreted. For example, he cited a study of students as showing there was no "math talent", only diligence. The setup actually was quite interesting: there was an additional informational questionnaire that wasn't about skills at all, and there was a correlation with conscientiously filling out that questionnaire and scoring high on the actual skills test. However. The effect only appeared in 2 grade levels and only in some years, so extremely weak evidence. But that's only a small detail. The big one was that the effect was only evident at the national level. So yes, there are no nations that are more talented at math than others. In other news, water still wet. However, the data, even if the flimsy bits are taken at face value, simply do not show at all that there is no math talent at the level of individuals, and in fact showed the exact opposite. Details.

by pjscott 10y ago

LionessLover 10y ago

Your criticism of Gladwell is oddly unspecific given the nature of your criticism. You fail to state what exactly you criticize in his 10,000 hour statement. When I read the kind of criticism you seem to be referring to, like this one: http://www.businessinsider.com/new-study-destroys-malcolm-gladwells-10000-rule-2014-7?IR=T http://www.businessinsider.com/new-study-destroys-malcolm-gl... I notice that the examples are silly: They equate "success" with "mastery". For example, they write > Then there's a band like the Sex Pistols, who took the world by storm even though Sid Vicious could barely play his bass. So they themselves say he "could barely play his bass"! How does that refute the mastery theory? The Richard Branson example is about "success" and not "mastery" too - I bet Richard DID have "10,000 hours" of business practice. Not that Gladwell made any specific predictions either AFAIR. I wish the people criticizing his work would made an example of how to be better - but it seems the criticism itself sets new low points in quality. "What Malcolm Gladwell REALLY Said About The 10,000 Hour Rule": http://problogservice.com/2012/03/15/what-malcolm-gladwell-really-said-about-the-10000-hour-rule/ http://problogservice.com/2012/03/15/what-malcolm-gladwell-r... > “Malcolm Gladwell said you have to have 10000 hours in a subject to be an expert,” they will often state. The problem is, they’re repeating a misquote from someone else who has never read the book. Also note how Gladwell quotes scientists - so any criticism should be directed at those: > “The emerging picture from such studies is that ten thousand hours of practice is required to achieve the level of mastery associated with being a world-class expert—in anything,” writes the neurologist Daniel Levitin. — p. 40

mpweiher 10y ago

Oh, and even the stuff that was true was completely misinterpreted. For example, he cited a study of students as showing there was no "math talent", only diligence. The setup actually was quite interesting: there was an additional informational questionnaire that wasn't about skills at all, and there was a correlation with conscientiously filling out that questionnaire and scoring high on the actual skills test. However. The effect only appeared in 2 grade levels and only in some years, so extremely weak evidence. But that's only a small detail. The big one was that the effect was only evident at the national level. So yes, there are no nations that are more talented at math than others. In other news, water still wet. However, the data, even if the flimsy bits are taken at face value, simply do not show at all that there is no math talent at the level of individuals, and in fact showed the exact opposite. Details.