14 ms·

Malcolm Gladwell got us wrong: here’s what got oversimplified

141 points by luu 10y ago

bitwize 10y ago
Malcolm Gladwell gets a lot wrong. Malcolm Gladwell is the Dan Brown of pop sociology.
- grkvlt 10y ago
  That's a little unfair. Dan Brown gets everything wrong.
krat0sprakhar 10y ago
I think this is the crux of this article: This puts the ten-thousand-hour rule in a completely different light: The reason that you must put in ten thousand or more hours of practice to become one of the world’s best violinists or chess players or golfers is that the people you are being compared to or competing with have themselves put in ten thousand or more hours of practice. There is no point at which performance maxes out and additional practice does not lead to further improvement. So, yes, if you wish to become one of the best in the world in one of these highly competitive fields, you will need to put in thousands and thousands of hours of hard, focused work just to have a chance of equaling all of those others who have chosen to put in the same sort of work.
- AndHeiberg 10y ago
  Thanks for the summary!
- paulpauper 10y ago
  It didn't read that way in Outliers, where he implied there was a linear relationship between practice and ability, without preconditions. When confronted, he had to offer a clarification clause that the rule only applied to those who already did 10,000 hours, but that thousands of more hours are needed. Suuure whatever you say, Gadwell.
  - andrewrice 10y ago
    So, is there not a linear relationship between practice and ability? Or at least a positive correlation?
moron4hire 10y ago
Gladwell himself readily admits he stretches facts and makes up other concepts out of whole cloth in the name of entertainment, making his books essentially fiction.
- savanaly 10y ago
  Source?
- dimino 10y ago
  This is not true, Gladwell readily admits that the literal value of 10,000 was not meant to be taken literally.
  - curried_haskell 10y ago
    But people take it at face value. And if 10,000 is just a made-up number, then is he even saying anything of value? It takes thousands of hours to become an expert at something. Wow! Really? Who knew!?
    - ZanyProgrammer 10y ago
      Its like with Bill Gates-you mean someone interested in computing in the 1970s started a famous tech company? What are the odds!
      - randomsearch 10y ago
        Have you read Outliers? It makes exactly that point.
        ZanyProgrammer 10y ago
        Yes, that was my point-Gladwell takes the utterly obvious (in this case) and makes it out to be profound. Its like saying its amazing that so many junior officers in World War 1 were senior officers in World War 2.
janvdberg 10y ago
The Freakonomics podcast recently had 2 interesting episodes about exactly this. Both Ericsson and Gladwell explain their theories. http://freakonomics.com/podcast/peak/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/peak/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/malcolm-gladwell/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/malcolm-gladwell/
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
kristianc 10y ago
I wonder if we're missing the point of Gladwell. Gladwell doesn't, as far as I know, pretend to be a world-class psychologist at the cutting edge of popular research. I'm not sure many university departments would take him all that seriously. What he's an expert at doing is wrapping quite esoteric concepts up in a language that people can understand, relate to and discuss. For instance, he offers the Cliffnotes version of an answer to the question 'So how much work did I have to put in to become an expert at something' or 'How did containerization change world trade?.' He does this better than almost anyone, and his theories are tied to actual research (which sets him apart from the 'this sounds about right' of the likes of Seth Godin.) If he doesn't offer enough precision and clarity for you, consider that his audiences are themselves well below the 10,000 hours threshold in the subjects he tends to opine on.
- smt88 10y ago
  > pretend to be a world-class psychologist at the cutting edge of popular research He does pretend to be presenting facts, and he's still on the hook for being wrong a lot of the time.
- dimino 10y ago
  Yeah, Gladwell talks endlessly about this on basically every podcast that asks him on, and he tries very hard to clarify that his "10,000 rule" was illustrative, not to be taken literally, as in "9,999... 10,000! Okay I've mastered this!"
  - lubujackson 10y ago
    Which means he is stating "practice a lot and you'll get good." Which would be obvious if it wasn't also false. You also need to be practicing the right things in the right way and evolve what you practice as you develop. If you put a person in a room with a piano and had them futz with it for 10,000 hours they will end up much worse than someone who has a dedicated coach, sheet music and proper exercises. Pretty much everything Gladwell posits is just some folksy wisdom pretending to be fresh insight wearing a shoddy Einstein wig.
RawData 10y ago
All you have to do is read Gladwell to know he's basically a hack...this comes as no shock.
thoman23 10y ago
I don't care if it's oversimplified. The 10,000 hour rule is brilliant for getting people past the difficult stages of learning a new skill. Can't play guitar? It's not because you were born without musical talent...it's because you haven't put in your time yet. Get to work. People aren't born playing guitar. They learn to play guitar...through practice...lots and lots and lots of practice...10,000 hours of practice! For me, this realization was life-changing. And yes, I learned to play the guitar at the age of 40 after reading Outliers because I then had faith that with enough hours of hard work that I could do it. And I did. And now playing music is one of my greatest pleasures in life.
- nashadelic 10y ago
  While I understand your point, the danger in this over simplification is that it encourages brute forcification. If 10k hours were only enough, our typing speed would keep increasing. But that's not the case; to improve you need to be challenged with a higher skill level requirement. For example, if you're at 100 WPM, use a typing tutor that requires 110. Otherwise you'll just stargnate.
  - matwood 10y ago
    I believe Gladwell does say 'deliberate practice' so he agrees that time alone is not enough. It must be time well spent.
- nostromo 10y ago
  The question is if Malcolm Gladwell wants to be a Tony Robbins type author or a Steven Pinker type author. Both are fine. One is meant to be motivational, and one is meant to inform the public about science. Gladwell's reputation is one of a science-based author which brings with it extra scrutiny.
  - gxs 10y ago
    Could not have said this better myself. I've struggled to articulate my dislike of Gladwell, but you've done it accurately here.
starchild3001 10y ago
Malcom Gladwell is a great story teller, but a terrible researcher. I had sworn to never buy another book by him even before seeing this news. He's BSing too much.
- tjl 10y ago
  What bothers me so much is that his father is both an excellent teacher and researcher so he should have a good role model. I took a course from his father during my undergrad.
  - paulpauper 10y ago
    maybe it skips a generation of it's recessive
    - srtjstjsj 10y ago
      Gladwell could write a great book about that. _Skipped: How Genetics Shape Generations_
- paulpauper 10y ago
  anecdotal evidence, sentimentalism, really small sample sizes (Beatles, Bill Gates -a sample size of TWO)
gokhan 10y ago
Of course there's no hard-coded number of required 10.000 hours of practice, but Gladwell just simplifies the process of excelling on anything: Lots of practice with some other things depending on the field. That's enough for me. I always mention this guy [1] whenever this topic comes into the discussion. It has tangible aspects, you can see the improvement in his paintings along with the number of years passed, it's a journal. [1] http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php/870-Journey-of-an-Absolute-Rookie-Paintings-and-Sketches http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php/870-Journey-...
pizza 10y ago
O for the day when the 10,000 hours rule is replaced by the 10,000 unique mistakes rule - because if you had the swarm knowledge of the mistakes others have made before you (if you weren't the first making mistakes towards some goal), you would learn from negative examples probably at least as fast as by independent effort. You could even control it: p = tau * mistakes + (1 - tau) * independent effort
- pklausler 10y ago
  Distinct mistakes. If there were only one mistake you could make, it would then be unique.
morgante 10y ago
People take the 10,000 hours "rule" entirely too seriously. Gladwell himself admits 10,000 hours is rather arbitrary. The point is still important though, as far too many people start a new skill and are disheartened by their lack of ability before putting in serious practice. It might seem obvious that practice is necessary for most skills, but people forget it all the time. For example, when I'm teaching people programming they're quick to think themselves failures when they see the giant gap between their abilities and my own. What they don't realize is that I've been doing it for over a decade and, in fact, was much worse than them at first. [0] [0] In fact, I probably only did HTML for my first whole month of "programming." One major advantage of learning things as a kid is that there's no pressure to be good.
- thoman23 10y ago
  Exactly! I grew up thinking school is "my thing" and when I saw people with other skills (music, drawing, acting, cooking, etc.), that must just be "their thing". Yes, people have natural strengths and aptitudes, and there are some things that I know I'm just not inclined for, but it is a very empowering feeling to believe that I can choose to dedicate my time to learning a new skill and become proficient at it. At the same time, the "rule" also should tell you that each new skill you pursue has a serious opportunity cost, so choose carefully!
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    Well sort of. What's the opportunity cost of doing nothing? That's what most of us end up doing.
paulpauper 10y ago
After all, a message that gives hope to the dullards who buy his books that they too can covet the skills of geniuses with just enough practice, is an appealing one. http://greyenlightenment.com/the-iq-wars/ http://greyenlightenment.com/the-iq-wars/
Axsuul 10y ago
It's easy to take the 10,000 rule too literally and never end up excelling. Take for example, my Grandpa who's been learning English for over 20 years, whose proficiency level has been at a sad plateau for greater than a decade, despite subscribing to a "How to Learn English" program daily. What he isn't doing is going out and failing, speaking, and deliberately focusing on areas that he's terrible at. He's become too comfortable at learning English and not practicing with intent. I think we can all conjure up examples like these in our everyday lives. The casual Dad who plays tennis every weekend but hasn't won a Round Robin tournament ever. Or the entrepreneur that jumps from idea to idea, never really following through and taking a risk.
lubujackson 10y ago
Malcolm Gladwell is an idiot posing as a "scientist" (because of his hair I guess?) Every book he writes is just anecdotes with a vague thesis. Practicing stuff makes you good? Thanks for the insight. It's feel-good science-iness like those crap games that "exercise your brain". It's just marketing.
edtechdev 10y ago
Anders Ericsson's deliberate practice theory, from which the 10,000 hours idea came, has also been critiqued in other ways. See this special issue of Intelligence for some articles, and below is a sort of summary: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01602896/45 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01602896/45 His work tends to focus on narrow areas of performance: chess, music, etc., where rote learning, memorization, drill, and repetition are the main keys, unlike 'messier' areas like research, engineering, teaching, and the like. But even within those narrow domains, his theory isn't sufficient to explain performance, individual differences, and expertise (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000421 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613...). There are so many exceptions to the rule (like child prodigies http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613001207 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613... ), so many domain differences (like he is acknowledging now in the target article). He ignores the last 30 years of research in cognitive psychology. For example, persistent misconceptions and bad habits that prevent us from learning and making significant progress in both conceptual and physical domains. His theory ignores genetic factors that influence performance and expertise (see http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613... or just watch a game of basketball), and ignores the role of IQ (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000974 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613...). The data does not support Ericsson's theory, and his arguments have errors and contradictions (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614000087 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614...).
EddieSpeaks 10y ago
Ewe, A Salon article
dj_doh 10y ago
10,000 hours is nice whole cozy number. But it's not about 9,000 hrs or 11,000 hrs. You have to keep at it for an extended period of time. That's where passion and innovation helps you sail thru.
wcummings 10y ago
What do you expect, Gladwell is a professional shill.
jondubois 10y ago
The other thing which is often implied is that once you're a master of a particular field, that financial success will necessarily follow. This is not the case. Being a master in your field does improve your odds to a certain point and it can certainly get you a high income. But to actually become wealthy, you need more than skill/talent. Once you get in the top 0.1% of your field, the level of talent/competition is so extremely high that it becomes literally impossible to differentiate skill levels between individuals (even experts in that field can't do it) - Beyond this point, to progress further, you have to rely on either luck or social connections. The hard part is that you have to keep practising/learning like crazy just to maintain your approximate 'ranking'. Thankfully, at that skill level, influential/wealthy people might recognize your talent and may actually bother to answer your emails if you craft them correctly. But yeah, you'd better have damn good emotional intelligence/soft skills because beyond that, it's all about social scheming and manipulation. The #1 most famous person in a given field is rarely the #1 in terms of skill level - They probably rank somewhere in the top 1% or maybe in the top 0.1% (if the field is particularly meritocratic) but it is unlikely that they even make the top 1000 list. The meritocracy factor is probably relatively strong in fields like maths and science (research) but extremely weak in fields like acting, painting or music. It's related to the degree of subjectivity in each field. But I think even in science and engineering, there is a lot more subjectivity involved than most people would admit.
- morgante 10y ago
  The key to success is having intersecting skills. It's much easier to (for example) be both a pretty good developer and a pretty good business guy than it is to be the best developer, yet the former will often make more money. This, of course, isn't exclusive to software. The social scientist who is actually also great at mathematics will be able to make much more compelling grant requests than the average one who has muddled numbers and poor analysis.
- rhizome 10y ago
  The other thing which is often implied is that once you're a master of a particular field, that financial success will necessarily follow. How and where is this implied?
Taek 10y ago
"an hour of playing in front of a crowd, where the focus is on delivering the best possible performance at the time, is not the same as an hour of focused, goal-driven practice" A different study tested students on their ability to make clay pots. Some students were scored on the quality of each pot. Others were only scored based on quantity. The students that emphasized quantity were able to make better pots by the end of the study. By aiming for quantity over quality, they were able to deliver both. Performing puts a lot of pressure on you and a more direct focus on the mistakes and triumphs that count. I wouldn't be too quick to disregard how valuable it could be, because it forces you to follow through and work on all the important things.
- barry-cotter 10y ago
  This story originates on coding horror and when gwern of gwern.net, active on this website checked the chain of citations the claim was not supported. It may be true but there's no evidence for it.
- kens 10y ago
  I tried to find the original source of the quality-vs-quantity pottery class story a while back. I think it originates in the book "Art and Fear" but in that book it reads like a parable rather than a factual event. (And it's definitely not a study in that book.)
  - kens 10y ago
    Well, I checked with one of the authors of "Art and Fear", and it turns out that the quality-vs-quantity pottery class is a true story, except it wasn't a ceramics class as written, but a university level photography class! They changed it to pottery in the book because they had too many photography examples already.
_callcc 10y ago
Gladwell is a well-known hack and has a terrible reputation in journalist circles for the shilling he did for tobacco companies while being paid handsomely for it.
- barry-cotter 10y ago
  Reputation among journalist circles is worthless if Jonah Lehrer can get a job at any newspaper after being outed as a faker and a plagiarist. He can and it is.
  - srtjstjsj 10y ago
    Perhaps journalists aren't managing editors at newspapers,
threepipeproblm 10y ago
As far as I can tell Gladwell has "oversimplified" nearly every subject he touches, because he is more interested in pumping up his image than in doing meaningful work. He just did a show on how going to Bowdoin instead of Vassar is eeevil because Bowdoin feeds students really well and only has 13% of students on the highest level of financial aid, whereas Vassar food (according to the show) gives students diarrhea but has a 23% number. The argument was just supremely stupid but if you don't listen too closely he sounds smart. Or I should say, he sounds smart to the naive and bad-at-math variety of socialists (a category in which I don't lump every socialist btw).
- morgante 10y ago
  Yes, Gladwell simplifies things. That doesn't make him wrong. I listened to the financial aid episode on Revisionist History. Why do you think it is supremely stupid? Money spent on facilities absolutely limits the financial aid budget at institutions. This has a real effect. The average debt of Vassar students is $8k lower than Bowdoin for a reason. [0] [1] [0] http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/vassar-college-2895/paying http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/... [1] http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/bowdoin-college-2038/paying http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/...
  - threepipeproblm 10y ago
    Well for one, the numbers don't work. The idea that if Bowdoin just served students the same crap food as Vassar their financial aid programs would be equalized doesn't hold water. Also, the notion that cutting student services back to the point that many of Vassarh interviewees spoke of a laxative effect is somehow humanitarian doesn't hold water. The idea that if Bowdoin, which has one of the more generous financial aid systems of the elite schools, has to hit a certain percentage of aid or is somehow immoral, also doesn't hold water. They pretended to the Bowdoin interviewees -- which did not include anyone who could have rebutted -- that this was only about food, while Vassar's highest officials were interviewed about their humanitarian goals. You can see a response from Bowdoin officials here. https://www.boston.com/news/education/2016/07/15/bowdoin-college-malcolm-gladwell https://www.boston.com/news/education/2016/07/15/bowdoin-col... [FIXED LINK] Bowdoin's financial aid approach is certainly different. For instance, they tend to give 100% of the gap for any student who qualifies, and this has been going on for some time. Vassar doesn't do it this way, but increasing financial aid somewhat for students who were only partially qualifying was touted by Gladwell as some kind of revolution. By the way, the State school based in Portland, ME also gives surf and turf dinners...
veritas3241 10y ago
Gladwell had a chance to reiterate his view on the 10,000 hour rule in (I believe) an episode of the Tim Ferriss podcast. The point he said he was trying to make wasn't that it took some arbitrary number of hours to become good at something, it was that you need a lot of outside support to get good at things. If you're trying to rack up your 10k hours, you're not going to be able to also have a full time job, keep up with kids, or a house or any of the other responsibilities of adult life.
ryanmarsh 10y ago
News flash, Gladwell got hand-wavy. That's... kind of his business model.

141 points by luu 10y ago

bitwize 10y ago

Malcolm Gladwell gets a lot wrong. Malcolm Gladwell is the Dan Brown of pop sociology.

grkvlt 10y ago
That's a little unfair. Dan Brown gets everything wrong.

krat0sprakhar 10y ago

I think this is the crux of this article: This puts the ten-thousand-hour rule in a completely different light: The reason that you must put in ten thousand or more hours of practice to become one of the world’s best violinists or chess players or golfers is that the people you are being compared to or competing with have themselves put in ten thousand or more hours of practice. There is no point at which performance maxes out and additional practice does not lead to further improvement. So, yes, if you wish to become one of the best in the world in one of these highly competitive fields, you will need to put in thousands and thousands of hours of hard, focused work just to have a chance of equaling all of those others who have chosen to put in the same sort of work.

AndHeiberg 10y ago
Thanks for the summary!
paulpauper 10y ago
It didn't read that way in Outliers, where he implied there was a linear relationship between practice and ability, without preconditions. When confronted, he had to offer a clarification clause that the rule only applied to those who already did 10,000 hours, but that thousands of more hours are needed. Suuure whatever you say, Gadwell.
- andrewrice 10y ago
  So, is there not a linear relationship between practice and ability? Or at least a positive correlation?

moron4hire 10y ago

Gladwell himself readily admits he stretches facts and makes up other concepts out of whole cloth in the name of entertainment, making his books essentially fiction.

savanaly 10y ago
Source?
dimino 10y ago
This is not true, Gladwell readily admits that the literal value of 10,000 was not meant to be taken literally.
- curried_haskell 10y ago
  But people take it at face value. And if 10,000 is just a made-up number, then is he even saying anything of value? It takes thousands of hours to become an expert at something. Wow! Really? Who knew!?
  - ZanyProgrammer 10y ago
    Its like with Bill Gates-you mean someone interested in computing in the 1970s started a famous tech company? What are the odds!
    - randomsearch 10y ago
      Have you read Outliers? It makes exactly that point.
      - ZanyProgrammer 10y ago
        Yes, that was my point-Gladwell takes the utterly obvious (in this case) and makes it out to be profound. Its like saying its amazing that so many junior officers in World War 1 were senior officers in World War 2.

janvdberg 10y ago

The Freakonomics podcast recently had 2 interesting episodes about exactly this. Both Ericsson and Gladwell explain their theories. http://freakonomics.com/podcast/peak/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/peak/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/malcolm-gladwell/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/malcolm-gladwell/

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

kristianc 10y ago

I wonder if we're missing the point of Gladwell. Gladwell doesn't, as far as I know, pretend to be a world-class psychologist at the cutting edge of popular research. I'm not sure many university departments would take him all that seriously. What he's an expert at doing is wrapping quite esoteric concepts up in a language that people can understand, relate to and discuss. For instance, he offers the Cliffnotes version of an answer to the question 'So how much work did I have to put in to become an expert at something' or 'How did containerization change world trade?.' He does this better than almost anyone, and his theories are tied to actual research (which sets him apart from the 'this sounds about right' of the likes of Seth Godin.) If he doesn't offer enough precision and clarity for you, consider that his audiences are themselves well below the 10,000 hours threshold in the subjects he tends to opine on.

smt88 10y ago
> pretend to be a world-class psychologist at the cutting edge of popular research He does pretend to be presenting facts, and he's still on the hook for being wrong a lot of the time.
dimino 10y ago
Yeah, Gladwell talks endlessly about this on basically every podcast that asks him on, and he tries very hard to clarify that his "10,000 rule" was illustrative, not to be taken literally, as in "9,999... 10,000! Okay I've mastered this!"
- lubujackson 10y ago
  Which means he is stating "practice a lot and you'll get good." Which would be obvious if it wasn't also false. You also need to be practicing the right things in the right way and evolve what you practice as you develop. If you put a person in a room with a piano and had them futz with it for 10,000 hours they will end up much worse than someone who has a dedicated coach, sheet music and proper exercises. Pretty much everything Gladwell posits is just some folksy wisdom pretending to be fresh insight wearing a shoddy Einstein wig.

RawData 10y ago

All you have to do is read Gladwell to know he's basically a hack...this comes as no shock.

thoman23 10y ago

I don't care if it's oversimplified. The 10,000 hour rule is brilliant for getting people past the difficult stages of learning a new skill. Can't play guitar? It's not because you were born without musical talent...it's because you haven't put in your time yet. Get to work. People aren't born playing guitar. They learn to play guitar...through practice...lots and lots and lots of practice...10,000 hours of practice! For me, this realization was life-changing. And yes, I learned to play the guitar at the age of 40 after reading Outliers because I then had faith that with enough hours of hard work that I could do it. And I did. And now playing music is one of my greatest pleasures in life.

nashadelic 10y ago
While I understand your point, the danger in this over simplification is that it encourages brute forcification. If 10k hours were only enough, our typing speed would keep increasing. But that's not the case; to improve you need to be challenged with a higher skill level requirement. For example, if you're at 100 WPM, use a typing tutor that requires 110. Otherwise you'll just stargnate.
- matwood 10y ago
  I believe Gladwell does say 'deliberate practice' so he agrees that time alone is not enough. It must be time well spent.
nostromo 10y ago
The question is if Malcolm Gladwell wants to be a Tony Robbins type author or a Steven Pinker type author. Both are fine. One is meant to be motivational, and one is meant to inform the public about science. Gladwell's reputation is one of a science-based author which brings with it extra scrutiny.
- gxs 10y ago
  Could not have said this better myself. I've struggled to articulate my dislike of Gladwell, but you've done it accurately here.

starchild3001 10y ago

Malcom Gladwell is a great story teller, but a terrible researcher. I had sworn to never buy another book by him even before seeing this news. He's BSing too much.

tjl 10y ago
What bothers me so much is that his father is both an excellent teacher and researcher so he should have a good role model. I took a course from his father during my undergrad.
- paulpauper 10y ago
  maybe it skips a generation of it's recessive
  - srtjstjsj 10y ago
    Gladwell could write a great book about that. _Skipped: How Genetics Shape Generations_
paulpauper 10y ago
anecdotal evidence, sentimentalism, really small sample sizes (Beatles, Bill Gates -a sample size of TWO)

gokhan 10y ago

Of course there's no hard-coded number of required 10.000 hours of practice, but Gladwell just simplifies the process of excelling on anything: Lots of practice with some other things depending on the field. That's enough for me. I always mention this guy [1] whenever this topic comes into the discussion. It has tangible aspects, you can see the improvement in his paintings along with the number of years passed, it's a journal. [1] http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php/870-Journey-of-an-Absolute-Rookie-Paintings-and-Sketches http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php/870-Journey-...

pizza 10y ago

O for the day when the 10,000 hours rule is replaced by the 10,000 unique mistakes rule - because if you had the swarm knowledge of the mistakes others have made before you (if you weren't the first making mistakes towards some goal), you would learn from negative examples probably at least as fast as by independent effort. You could even control it: p = tau * mistakes + (1 - tau) * independent effort

pklausler 10y ago
Distinct mistakes. If there were only one mistake you could make, it would then be unique.

morgante 10y ago

People take the 10,000 hours "rule" entirely too seriously. Gladwell himself admits 10,000 hours is rather arbitrary. The point is still important though, as far too many people start a new skill and are disheartened by their lack of ability before putting in serious practice. It might seem obvious that practice is necessary for most skills, but people forget it all the time. For example, when I'm teaching people programming they're quick to think themselves failures when they see the giant gap between their abilities and my own. What they don't realize is that I've been doing it for over a decade and, in fact, was much worse than them at first. [0] [0] In fact, I probably only did HTML for my first whole month of "programming." One major advantage of learning things as a kid is that there's no pressure to be good.

thoman23 10y ago
Exactly! I grew up thinking school is "my thing" and when I saw people with other skills (music, drawing, acting, cooking, etc.), that must just be "their thing". Yes, people have natural strengths and aptitudes, and there are some things that I know I'm just not inclined for, but it is a very empowering feeling to believe that I can choose to dedicate my time to learning a new skill and become proficient at it. At the same time, the "rule" also should tell you that each new skill you pursue has a serious opportunity cost, so choose carefully!
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  Well sort of. What's the opportunity cost of doing nothing? That's what most of us end up doing.

paulpauper 10y ago

After all, a message that gives hope to the dullards who buy his books that they too can covet the skills of geniuses with just enough practice, is an appealing one. http://greyenlightenment.com/the-iq-wars/ http://greyenlightenment.com/the-iq-wars/

Axsuul 10y ago

It's easy to take the 10,000 rule too literally and never end up excelling. Take for example, my Grandpa who's been learning English for over 20 years, whose proficiency level has been at a sad plateau for greater than a decade, despite subscribing to a "How to Learn English" program daily. What he isn't doing is going out and failing, speaking, and deliberately focusing on areas that he's terrible at. He's become too comfortable at learning English and not practicing with intent. I think we can all conjure up examples like these in our everyday lives. The casual Dad who plays tennis every weekend but hasn't won a Round Robin tournament ever. Or the entrepreneur that jumps from idea to idea, never really following through and taking a risk.

lubujackson 10y ago

Malcolm Gladwell is an idiot posing as a "scientist" (because of his hair I guess?) Every book he writes is just anecdotes with a vague thesis. Practicing stuff makes you good? Thanks for the insight. It's feel-good science-iness like those crap games that "exercise your brain". It's just marketing.

edtechdev 10y ago

Anders Ericsson's deliberate practice theory, from which the 10,000 hours idea came, has also been critiqued in other ways. See this special issue of Intelligence for some articles, and below is a sort of summary: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01602896/45 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01602896/45 His work tends to focus on narrow areas of performance: chess, music, etc., where rote learning, memorization, drill, and repetition are the main keys, unlike 'messier' areas like research, engineering, teaching, and the like. But even within those narrow domains, his theory isn't sufficient to explain performance, individual differences, and expertise (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000421 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613...). There are so many exceptions to the rule (like child prodigies http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613001207 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613... ), so many domain differences (like he is acknowledging now in the target article). He ignores the last 30 years of research in cognitive psychology. For example, persistent misconceptions and bad habits that prevent us from learning and making significant progress in both conceptual and physical domains. His theory ignores genetic factors that influence performance and expertise (see http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613... or just watch a game of basketball), and ignores the role of IQ (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000974 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613...). The data does not support Ericsson's theory, and his arguments have errors and contradictions (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614000087 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614...).

EddieSpeaks 10y ago

Ewe, A Salon article

dj_doh 10y ago

10,000 hours is nice whole cozy number. But it's not about 9,000 hrs or 11,000 hrs. You have to keep at it for an extended period of time. That's where passion and innovation helps you sail thru.

wcummings 10y ago

What do you expect, Gladwell is a professional shill.

jondubois 10y ago

The other thing which is often implied is that once you're a master of a particular field, that financial success will necessarily follow. This is not the case. Being a master in your field does improve your odds to a certain point and it can certainly get you a high income. But to actually become wealthy, you need more than skill/talent. Once you get in the top 0.1% of your field, the level of talent/competition is so extremely high that it becomes literally impossible to differentiate skill levels between individuals (even experts in that field can't do it) - Beyond this point, to progress further, you have to rely on either luck or social connections. The hard part is that you have to keep practising/learning like crazy just to maintain your approximate 'ranking'. Thankfully, at that skill level, influential/wealthy people might recognize your talent and may actually bother to answer your emails if you craft them correctly. But yeah, you'd better have damn good emotional intelligence/soft skills because beyond that, it's all about social scheming and manipulation. The #1 most famous person in a given field is rarely the #1 in terms of skill level - They probably rank somewhere in the top 1% or maybe in the top 0.1% (if the field is particularly meritocratic) but it is unlikely that they even make the top 1000 list. The meritocracy factor is probably relatively strong in fields like maths and science (research) but extremely weak in fields like acting, painting or music. It's related to the degree of subjectivity in each field. But I think even in science and engineering, there is a lot more subjectivity involved than most people would admit.

morgante 10y ago
The key to success is having intersecting skills. It's much easier to (for example) be both a pretty good developer and a pretty good business guy than it is to be the best developer, yet the former will often make more money. This, of course, isn't exclusive to software. The social scientist who is actually also great at mathematics will be able to make much more compelling grant requests than the average one who has muddled numbers and poor analysis.
rhizome 10y ago
The other thing which is often implied is that once you're a master of a particular field, that financial success will necessarily follow. How and where is this implied?

Taek 10y ago

"an hour of playing in front of a crowd, where the focus is on delivering the best possible performance at the time, is not the same as an hour of focused, goal-driven practice" A different study tested students on their ability to make clay pots. Some students were scored on the quality of each pot. Others were only scored based on quantity. The students that emphasized quantity were able to make better pots by the end of the study. By aiming for quantity over quality, they were able to deliver both. Performing puts a lot of pressure on you and a more direct focus on the mistakes and triumphs that count. I wouldn't be too quick to disregard how valuable it could be, because it forces you to follow through and work on all the important things.

barry-cotter 10y ago
This story originates on coding horror and when gwern of gwern.net, active on this website checked the chain of citations the claim was not supported. It may be true but there's no evidence for it.
kens 10y ago
I tried to find the original source of the quality-vs-quantity pottery class story a while back. I think it originates in the book "Art and Fear" but in that book it reads like a parable rather than a factual event. (And it's definitely not a study in that book.)
- kens 10y ago
  Well, I checked with one of the authors of "Art and Fear", and it turns out that the quality-vs-quantity pottery class is a true story, except it wasn't a ceramics class as written, but a university level photography class! They changed it to pottery in the book because they had too many photography examples already.

_callcc 10y ago

Gladwell is a well-known hack and has a terrible reputation in journalist circles for the shilling he did for tobacco companies while being paid handsomely for it.

barry-cotter 10y ago
Reputation among journalist circles is worthless if Jonah Lehrer can get a job at any newspaper after being outed as a faker and a plagiarist. He can and it is.
- srtjstjsj 10y ago
  Perhaps journalists aren't managing editors at newspapers,

threepipeproblm 10y ago

As far as I can tell Gladwell has "oversimplified" nearly every subject he touches, because he is more interested in pumping up his image than in doing meaningful work. He just did a show on how going to Bowdoin instead of Vassar is eeevil because Bowdoin feeds students really well and only has 13% of students on the highest level of financial aid, whereas Vassar food (according to the show) gives students diarrhea but has a 23% number. The argument was just supremely stupid but if you don't listen too closely he sounds smart. Or I should say, he sounds smart to the naive and bad-at-math variety of socialists (a category in which I don't lump every socialist btw).

morgante 10y ago
Yes, Gladwell simplifies things. That doesn't make him wrong. I listened to the financial aid episode on Revisionist History. Why do you think it is supremely stupid? Money spent on facilities absolutely limits the financial aid budget at institutions. This has a real effect. The average debt of Vassar students is $8k lower than Bowdoin for a reason. [0] [1] [0] http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/vassar-college-2895/paying http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/... [1] http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/bowdoin-college-2038/paying http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/...
- threepipeproblm 10y ago
  Well for one, the numbers don't work. The idea that if Bowdoin just served students the same crap food as Vassar their financial aid programs would be equalized doesn't hold water. Also, the notion that cutting student services back to the point that many of Vassarh interviewees spoke of a laxative effect is somehow humanitarian doesn't hold water. The idea that if Bowdoin, which has one of the more generous financial aid systems of the elite schools, has to hit a certain percentage of aid or is somehow immoral, also doesn't hold water. They pretended to the Bowdoin interviewees -- which did not include anyone who could have rebutted -- that this was only about food, while Vassar's highest officials were interviewed about their humanitarian goals. You can see a response from Bowdoin officials here. https://www.boston.com/news/education/2016/07/15/bowdoin-college-malcolm-gladwell https://www.boston.com/news/education/2016/07/15/bowdoin-col... [FIXED LINK] Bowdoin's financial aid approach is certainly different. For instance, they tend to give 100% of the gap for any student who qualifies, and this has been going on for some time. Vassar doesn't do it this way, but increasing financial aid somewhat for students who were only partially qualifying was touted by Gladwell as some kind of revolution. By the way, the State school based in Portland, ME also gives surf and turf dinners...

veritas3241 10y ago

Gladwell had a chance to reiterate his view on the 10,000 hour rule in (I believe) an episode of the Tim Ferriss podcast. The point he said he was trying to make wasn't that it took some arbitrary number of hours to become good at something, it was that you need a lot of outside support to get good at things. If you're trying to rack up your 10k hours, you're not going to be able to also have a full time job, keep up with kids, or a house or any of the other responsibilities of adult life.

ryanmarsh 10y ago

News flash, Gladwell got hand-wavy. That's... kind of his business model.