2 ms·

If you read the author the original work, Gladwell got 80% right, 20% deviation on non-essential issues. Of course a pop science book can be said not representi

If you read the author the original work, Gladwell got 80% right, 20% deviation on non-essential issues. Of course a pop science book can be said not representing the original research "accurately". I think the author focused more on the difference because there is Gladwell's book received too many backlashes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practice_(learning_method)#Deliberate_practice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practice_(learning_method)#Del...

enkid 5y ago
I don't know, seems like they have pretty different views based on the article you linked.
- temp8964 5y ago
  ""He's [Ericsson] a hard practice guy, and I'm a soft practice guy." Gladwell claims that talent is important with an intentional dedication to practice and having a support system is vital to produce superior outcomes. It is not all about methodical effort as Ericsson claims." That's not "pretty different views". That's agree on all the basics but having a different sense of how much talent matters.
  - enkid 5y ago
    How about this? (The sentence you left out directly before that quote) "Malcolm Gladwell's point-of-view about deliberate practice is different from Ericsson's view." "Hard Practice" vs "Soft Practice" is the center of the argument, it is the point of contention. No one is going to argue that practice isn't important, they are going to argue how you should practice and how much it matters compared to other factors. They disagree on both of these points, so no, they don't agree.
    - temp8964 5y ago
      > "Hard Practice" vs "Soft Practice" is the center of the argument, it is the point of contention. If you focus on the difference, yes, it is the major difference between them. But if you focus on the main point (the overwhelming importance of 10 year of deliberate practice for one to become a top expert in a field), it is non-essential. There is no concrete empirical answer to how much exactly talent matters, even now.

enkid 5y ago

I don't know, seems like they have pretty different views based on the article you linked.

temp8964 5y ago
""He's [Ericsson] a hard practice guy, and I'm a soft practice guy." Gladwell claims that talent is important with an intentional dedication to practice and having a support system is vital to produce superior outcomes. It is not all about methodical effort as Ericsson claims." That's not "pretty different views". That's agree on all the basics but having a different sense of how much talent matters.
- enkid 5y ago
  How about this? (The sentence you left out directly before that quote) "Malcolm Gladwell's point-of-view about deliberate practice is different from Ericsson's view." "Hard Practice" vs "Soft Practice" is the center of the argument, it is the point of contention. No one is going to argue that practice isn't important, they are going to argue how you should practice and how much it matters compared to other factors. They disagree on both of these points, so no, they don't agree.
  - temp8964 5y ago
    > "Hard Practice" vs "Soft Practice" is the center of the argument, it is the point of contention. If you focus on the difference, yes, it is the major difference between them. But if you focus on the main point (the overwhelming importance of 10 year of deliberate practice for one to become a top expert in a field), it is non-essential. There is no concrete empirical answer to how much exactly talent matters, even now.