4 ms·

I'm not fond of all these attention grabbing hotshots. Gladwell's theory is completely bogus. A guy in UK tried to do that for Marathon and aimed to become an

by alecco 16y ago

I'm not fond of all these attention grabbing hotshots. Gladwell's theory is completely bogus. A guy in UK tried to do that for Marathon and aimed to become an olympian. He did a lot of media and called his upcoming documentary "The Road to Beijing". He didn't make it, and wasn't even close (from what I remember it was 2:40 or 2:45). Then he went to Ethiopia and picked a protege. His protege was fast but didn't win a thing. He is now a motivational speaker. I guess blatant self promotion always works. He used to be the running joke in UK runner's forums but he is the one laughing now.

DanielStraight 16y ago
The theory isn't about becoming the best in the world. It's about achieving "greatness" or "success." Most people can't even run a marathon, much less do so in under 3 hours. I don't see how you could call someone unsuccessful who can do so.
- alecco 16y ago
  This kind of crazy promise sidelines real athletes working hard for many years. Many athletes working hard were in his shadow in the media. Media spots are very important for non-professional athletes as they depend on sponsorships and donations. I find it very disrespectful.
  - DanielStraight 16y ago
    How is someone practicing 6 hours a day, 6 days a week for 6 years with the intention of going pro not a "real athlete working hard for many years?" That's what I don't understand about all the negative replies in this thread. What defines a "real athlete" if it's not a whole lot of hard work? How does quantifying the effort make it less real?
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago
  >"Most people can't even run a marathon, much less do so in under 3 hours." // Most people don't try. I think that most healthy people could walk (you said "run") a marathon if they desired to. even if you walked for 2 miles an hour and had a 10 minute break that would be 17 hours of effort. 3mph is the usually quoted walking speed. Perhaps I'm wrong.
jsherry 16y ago
I think that calling Gladwell's suggestion that 10,000 hours is the magic number to become an expert bogus based on your single data point is a bit hasty. Gladwell didn't say that everybody who puts in 10,000 hours of band lessons becomes the Beatles. The way I interpreted the book was that the 10,000 hours of practice was simply a prerequisite to becoming the Beatles. There were numerous other factors outside of this practice time requirement that lifted the Beatles to fame. Many of those factors were luck-driven, including but not limited to inherent talent that they were born with. In fact, my interpretation of Outliers was that being good is simply a prerequisite - the rest is heavily luck-driven even though nobody really likes to talk about it.
rsbrown 16y ago
This article is about someone committing to practicing "six hours a day, six days a week, for six years". Are you sure your "guy in UK" story is analogous? He actually committed 10,000 hours to the mission not once but twice?
cygwin98 16y ago
I think there is a limit that motivation and hard work can only push that far. Beyond that, it's basically gift or talent rules the game. That may sound bitter when you realize it, but it's a fact of truth. That's especially the case in Math and competitive sports.
- hugoestr 16y ago
  I think it is the other way around. Talent can take you only so far. After that you got to put in a lot of hard work. Ask teachers around, and most of them can tell you of many bright kids with big potential who never did anything with it.
scott_s 16y ago
The world record is 2:03. The guy you mentioned may not have been close to the world record, but a 2:40 marathon is 26 back-to-back 6 minute, 10 second miles. That's pretty damned good. Looking at the 2010 results from the NY and Boston Marathons, that's a few minutes shy of the 100th best person. Considering that those are elite races with entrants from around the world, I think his time is pretty damned good in an absolute sense, not just a relative sense. Best in the world, no. Olympic level, no. But I'd consider him elite.
- hugh3 16y ago
  Certainly he's very good, but there's still a huge gulf between him and the best marathon runners. And that's why this ten thousand hours thing is pretty random, yet pretty unfalsifiable. In any specialised activity, the first hundred hours of dedicated practice is good enough to make you better than most people. Keep practicing and you'll be better than 80% of the world. Keep it up for a bunch more time and you'll be better than 90% of the world. By the time the irrelevant ten thousand hours milestone pops by, you'll certainly be impressive at your activity, but whether you're in the top 5% or the top 0.001% depends on which activity you've chosen (plus your natural talent in that field). So for some definition of "expert", it's fair to say that ten thousand hours will make you an expert.
  - scott_s 16y ago
    but whether you're in the top 5% or the top 0.001% depends on which activity you've chosen (plus your natural talent in that field). I would be fine with that result. My objection is when people say "I'm just not good at X," when what they really mean is "I'm not as good at X as I think I should be, that frustrates me, and I lack the motivation to continue trying." If we can demonstrate that with enough practice, anyone can get good at anything (with a large delta of good), then I think that's meaningful. If that statement is self-evident to you, I've talked to people who don't consider it so. For example, I've talked to other CS majors who think that most people just don't have the right "mind" for programming, and I've taught programming to people who said similar things.
    - 16y ago
barry-cotter 16y ago
1. It isn't Gladwell's theory. 2. Even Gladwell isn't stupid enough to say that it's sufficient to put in 10,000 hours, he just implies it.
nl 16y ago
A 2:40 time isn't terrible - even at the Olympic level: http://www.iaaf.org/oly08/results/eventCode=3659/bydiscipline/disctype=4/sex=M/discCode=MAR/combCode=hash/roundCode=f/results.html#detM_MAR_hash_f http://www.iaaf.org/oly08/results/eventCode=3659/bydisciplin... (Of course, most of these guys had to do better than 2:40 to qualify, but still..)
- alecco 16y ago
  The Beijing 2008 marathon was run in extreme heat and humidity. The times were pushed back severely and some elite runners refused to participate. The last one to finish was 2:41 and the rest were DNF'd. Actually, I was too generous. He only did 3h10. From forum comments (not mine): I have to say after being an early supporter of this project I totally lost interest. I initially felt inspired by Vero's enthusiasm and drive and a feeling that "anybody could do it" in an American dream kind of way. Not sure if it was injury, but why didn't he run Amsterdam?

by alecco 16y ago

DanielStraight 16y ago

The theory isn't about becoming the best in the world. It's about achieving "greatness" or "success." Most people can't even run a marathon, much less do so in under 3 hours. I don't see how you could call someone unsuccessful who can do so.

alecco 16y ago
This kind of crazy promise sidelines real athletes working hard for many years. Many athletes working hard were in his shadow in the media. Media spots are very important for non-professional athletes as they depend on sponsorships and donations. I find it very disrespectful.
- DanielStraight 16y ago
  How is someone practicing 6 hours a day, 6 days a week for 6 years with the intention of going pro not a "real athlete working hard for many years?" That's what I don't understand about all the negative replies in this thread. What defines a "real athlete" if it's not a whole lot of hard work? How does quantifying the effort make it less real?
pbhjpbhj 16y ago
>"Most people can't even run a marathon, much less do so in under 3 hours." // Most people don't try. I think that most healthy people could walk (you said "run") a marathon if they desired to. even if you walked for 2 miles an hour and had a 10 minute break that would be 17 hours of effort. 3mph is the usually quoted walking speed. Perhaps I'm wrong.

jsherry 16y ago

I think that calling Gladwell's suggestion that 10,000 hours is the magic number to become an expert bogus based on your single data point is a bit hasty. Gladwell didn't say that everybody who puts in 10,000 hours of band lessons becomes the Beatles. The way I interpreted the book was that the 10,000 hours of practice was simply a prerequisite to becoming the Beatles. There were numerous other factors outside of this practice time requirement that lifted the Beatles to fame. Many of those factors were luck-driven, including but not limited to inherent talent that they were born with. In fact, my interpretation of Outliers was that being good is simply a prerequisite - the rest is heavily luck-driven even though nobody really likes to talk about it.

rsbrown 16y ago

This article is about someone committing to practicing "six hours a day, six days a week, for six years". Are you sure your "guy in UK" story is analogous? He actually committed 10,000 hours to the mission not once but twice?

cygwin98 16y ago

I think there is a limit that motivation and hard work can only push that far. Beyond that, it's basically gift or talent rules the game. That may sound bitter when you realize it, but it's a fact of truth. That's especially the case in Math and competitive sports.

hugoestr 16y ago
I think it is the other way around. Talent can take you only so far. After that you got to put in a lot of hard work. Ask teachers around, and most of them can tell you of many bright kids with big potential who never did anything with it.

scott_s 16y ago

The world record is 2:03. The guy you mentioned may not have been close to the world record, but a 2:40 marathon is 26 back-to-back 6 minute, 10 second miles. That's pretty damned good. Looking at the 2010 results from the NY and Boston Marathons, that's a few minutes shy of the 100th best person. Considering that those are elite races with entrants from around the world, I think his time is pretty damned good in an absolute sense, not just a relative sense. Best in the world, no. Olympic level, no. But I'd consider him elite.

hugh3 16y ago
Certainly he's very good, but there's still a huge gulf between him and the best marathon runners. And that's why this ten thousand hours thing is pretty random, yet pretty unfalsifiable. In any specialised activity, the first hundred hours of dedicated practice is good enough to make you better than most people. Keep practicing and you'll be better than 80% of the world. Keep it up for a bunch more time and you'll be better than 90% of the world. By the time the irrelevant ten thousand hours milestone pops by, you'll certainly be impressive at your activity, but whether you're in the top 5% or the top 0.001% depends on which activity you've chosen (plus your natural talent in that field). So for some definition of "expert", it's fair to say that ten thousand hours will make you an expert.
- scott_s 16y ago
  but whether you're in the top 5% or the top 0.001% depends on which activity you've chosen (plus your natural talent in that field). I would be fine with that result. My objection is when people say "I'm just not good at X," when what they really mean is "I'm not as good at X as I think I should be, that frustrates me, and I lack the motivation to continue trying." If we can demonstrate that with enough practice, anyone can get good at anything (with a large delta of good), then I think that's meaningful. If that statement is self-evident to you, I've talked to people who don't consider it so. For example, I've talked to other CS majors who think that most people just don't have the right "mind" for programming, and I've taught programming to people who said similar things.
  - 16y ago

barry-cotter 16y ago

1. It isn't Gladwell's theory. 2. Even Gladwell isn't stupid enough to say that it's sufficient to put in 10,000 hours, he just implies it.

nl 16y ago

A 2:40 time isn't terrible - even at the Olympic level: http://www.iaaf.org/oly08/results/eventCode=3659/bydiscipline/disctype=4/sex=M/discCode=MAR/combCode=hash/roundCode=f/results.html#detM_MAR_hash_f http://www.iaaf.org/oly08/results/eventCode=3659/bydisciplin... (Of course, most of these guys had to do better than 2:40 to qualify, but still..)

alecco 16y ago
The Beijing 2008 marathon was run in extreme heat and humidity. The times were pushed back severely and some elite runners refused to participate. The last one to finish was 2:41 and the rest were DNF'd. Actually, I was too generous. He only did 3h10. From forum comments (not mine): I have to say after being an early supporter of this project I totally lost interest. I initially felt inspired by Vero's enthusiasm and drive and a feeling that "anybody could do it" in an American dream kind of way. Not sure if it was injury, but why didn't he run Amsterdam?