9 ms·

Do I need to provide example when 1 hour of hard work leads to meaningful returns and 10000 hours leads to nothing to show that this theory incorrect or it is o

by yatsyk 16y ago

Do I need to provide example when 1 hour of hard work leads to meaningful returns and 10000 hours leads to nothing to show that this theory incorrect or it is obvious?

harscoat 16y ago
You missed the point. It's not about building a product but getting to MVP. "Customer Development", listening to your potential customers/users, making sthg people want, nailing it takes time. The 10kh rule (or here I guess 1k rule) is a necessary condition, not a sufficient one.
- yatsyk 16y ago
  So the rule now is "you need at least 1khours to make customer development"? is it impossible to perform "customer development" in less then 1khours? I've not finished reading Steve's book but I don't remember anything about this limit.
  - harscoat 16y ago
    No you are correct neither did I see Steve Blank saying there is one. For the 10kh rule to achieve sthg outstanding (write a masterpiece, be a prodigious musician etc.) it seems like it is pretty accurate. For business as always there is no rules ;) but to keep in mind that if you work 50h per week for 5months doing customer development, I would not be surprised that we are not far off. See the example of AirBnB: they said 1000 days in their StartupSchool talk that's way more and they seem pretty bright to me. Edit the link to Airbnb 1000 days Customer development odyssey ;) http://www.justin.tv/startupschool/b/272180383 http://www.justin.tv/startupschool/b/272180383
andreyf 16y ago
Not incorrect, just incomplete. The incompleteness might actually be a misreading of the book. If I remember right (it's been awhile since I read it), Gladwell mentioned this explicitly, just not as a major point the kind of which he drills into the reader's mind: 10,000 hours are necessary, but not sufficient. Isaac Newton, Henry Ford, and Andrew Carnegie* could not have accomplished what they did without devoting themselves in outmost sincerity to their ideas. The point is that to have a truly lasting impact on improving the world for the better, you need to devote at least 10,000 hours to something great and be smart about how you devote those 10,000 hours. Galdwell's point, from my reading of his book, is the hypothesis that the vast majority of people don't achieve Greatness because they don't begin to devote that kind of time to one aspiration, not because they are somehow inherently limited in their mental capacity. In other words, the world is full of unmotivated genius, and you're very likely one of them. Study hard, work hard, and strive for the stars, etc., etc. ;) * having recently met Larry Page for the first time during an internal Q&A session, I can assure you his intelligence is quite limited by human capacity, as well. Yes, he's a lot better at answering sensitive and badly phrased questions (my own) candidly and to-the-point than anyone I've known, but he's also had more experience with it than anyone I've known, also. However, he didn't seem inherently talented in any way than the smarter of my professors (I was once told by one who knew him that neither was Einstein). In essence, there are two points we sometimes lose in overly simplified metaphors: 1) there are a lot of really intelligent people changing the world for the better that aren't famous. A lot of the time, they don't want to be famous because it would get into the way of their work. 2) there is a big difference between famous people who publicize themselves as an a means to an end (their ideas), while others publicize themselves out of ego. We're all prone to the latter (at least I am), and should make a conscious effort to "unit test" that behavior every once in awhile. [maybe this is better as a blog post...]
- yatsyk 16y ago
  Gladwell mentions people that accomplished outstanding results after spending 10k hours. But it is not correct way to show that theory is correct. To support his claim he need to show that most people that accomplished outstanding results after 10k hours of work. But it is not true. There are people that accomplished good results after 100 hours, 1000 hours and 10000 hours for sure.

by yatsyk 16y ago

Do I need to provide example when 1 hour of hard work leads to meaningful returns and 10000 hours leads to nothing to show that this theory incorrect or it is obvious?

harscoat 16y ago

You missed the point. It's not about building a product but getting to MVP. "Customer Development", listening to your potential customers/users, making sthg people want, nailing it takes time. The 10kh rule (or here I guess 1k rule) is a necessary condition, not a sufficient one.

yatsyk 16y ago
So the rule now is "you need at least 1khours to make customer development"? is it impossible to perform "customer development" in less then 1khours? I've not finished reading Steve's book but I don't remember anything about this limit.
- harscoat 16y ago
  No you are correct neither did I see Steve Blank saying there is one. For the 10kh rule to achieve sthg outstanding (write a masterpiece, be a prodigious musician etc.) it seems like it is pretty accurate. For business as always there is no rules ;) but to keep in mind that if you work 50h per week for 5months doing customer development, I would not be surprised that we are not far off. See the example of AirBnB: they said 1000 days in their StartupSchool talk that's way more and they seem pretty bright to me. Edit the link to Airbnb 1000 days Customer development odyssey ;) http://www.justin.tv/startupschool/b/272180383 http://www.justin.tv/startupschool/b/272180383

andreyf 16y ago

Not incorrect, just incomplete. The incompleteness might actually be a misreading of the book. If I remember right (it's been awhile since I read it), Gladwell mentioned this explicitly, just not as a major point the kind of which he drills into the reader's mind: 10,000 hours are necessary, but not sufficient. Isaac Newton, Henry Ford, and Andrew Carnegie* could not have accomplished what they did without devoting themselves in outmost sincerity to their ideas. The point is that to have a truly lasting impact on improving the world for the better, you need to devote at least 10,000 hours to something great and be smart about how you devote those 10,000 hours. Galdwell's point, from my reading of his book, is the hypothesis that the vast majority of people don't achieve Greatness because they don't begin to devote that kind of time to one aspiration, not because they are somehow inherently limited in their mental capacity. In other words, the world is full of unmotivated genius, and you're very likely one of them. Study hard, work hard, and strive for the stars, etc., etc. ;) * having recently met Larry Page for the first time during an internal Q&A session, I can assure you his intelligence is quite limited by human capacity, as well. Yes, he's a lot better at answering sensitive and badly phrased questions (my own) candidly and to-the-point than anyone I've known, but he's also had more experience with it than anyone I've known, also. However, he didn't seem inherently talented in any way than the smarter of my professors (I was once told by one who knew him that neither was Einstein). In essence, there are two points we sometimes lose in overly simplified metaphors: 1) there are a lot of really intelligent people changing the world for the better that aren't famous. A lot of the time, they don't want to be famous because it would get into the way of their work. 2) there is a big difference between famous people who publicize themselves as an a means to an end (their ideas), while others publicize themselves out of ego. We're all prone to the latter (at least I am), and should make a conscious effort to "unit test" that behavior every once in awhile. [maybe this is better as a blog post...]

yatsyk 16y ago
Gladwell mentions people that accomplished outstanding results after spending 10k hours. But it is not correct way to show that theory is correct. To support his claim he need to show that most people that accomplished outstanding results after 10k hours of work. But it is not true. There are people that accomplished good results after 100 hours, 1000 hours and 10000 hours for sure.