3 ms·

Is it unreasonable to think that if someone has put in ten thousand hours into a general field such as programming (across various languages, as opposed to just

by imjk 15y ago

Is it unreasonable to think that if someone has put in ten thousand hours into a general field such as programming (across various languages, as opposed to just focus on one language) that there are enough general principles to extrapolate for them to be considered an expert programmer? Is your argument against Gladwell's idea (not really even his idea) that the professions he site has too many sub-components that under such a definition no one could achieve ten thousand hours of mastery? Perhaps I'm not understanding your argument. Regardless, it's interesting that you bring up the example of the neurosurgeon because Gladwell's specifically written about the mastery of expert surgeons including the example of Charlie Wilson, a highly regarded neurosurgeon. Included in his telling of the 2987 transsphenoidal resections of pituitary tumors that Wilson performed, Galdwell highlights the seemingly thousands of hours Wilson practiced surgical procedures on rats early in his career. You can read the article here: http://gladwell.com/1999/1999_08_02_a_genius.htm http://gladwell.com/1999/1999_08_02_a_genius.htm

kragen 15y ago
> Is it unreasonable to think that if someone has put in ten thousand hours into a general field such as programming (across various languages, as opposed to just focus on one language) that there are enough general principles to extrapolate for them to be considered an expert programmer? Well, maybe. But maybe Jeff Fox is right, and you really need ten thousand hours of programming in Forth to perform at an expert level programming in Forth. And, given IBM's historical turnover, it wouldn't be surprising if performing at an expert level maintaining DB2 required not just ten thousand hours of programming, but ten thousand hours of programming in PL/M on DB2, in order to know your way around that particular codebase well enough to perform well. Certainly the ramp-up time is likely to be longer on that codebase than on something more modern. But maybe we should go in the other direction — maybe Bill Gates is right, and it only takes a year or two of programming to perform within an epsilon of your best possible performance, and it's really something broader, like "engineering design of artifacts with human users", that needs a whole ten thousand hours of practice to master — not merely programming as such. My point is that these can't all be correct. Being an expert at engineering design of artifacts with human users implies that you're an expert at programming, which implies that you're an expert at programming in any context: in Forth, in PL/M in the core of DB2, on the space shuttle. Being an expert surgeon entails being expert at tying sutures, but it surely doesn't entail spending ten thousand hours practicing the tying of sutures.
- imjk 15y ago
  I think you're correct and I still don't think you invalidate Gladwell's point. Remember Gladwell originally proposed his idea on what it takes to become a "genius" to dispel the conventional notion of what it takes to become the Bill Gates's, Wayne Gretzkys, and Mozarts of the world. He's challenging the notion that these geniuses achieved their success by way of some innate talent in their fields. Whereas, he applies the ten thousand hours theory to show that the idea of some innate genius is a myth, but rather requires much work to achieve that level of success (not that profound). I think it's hard to argue with this point. Where you (and many other people including myself) find trouble in Gladwell's work is that it's too cursory and often overreaching. It's true that he's doesn't go into the specifics of various fields in defining the specific areas that each requires to achieve that genius level. But such a study would be extremely exhausting, if not impossible. It's also not where Gladwell sees his role; he's a pop scientist, not an academic. His job isn't to take academic studies and dig deeper. Quite the opposite. As a pop scientist, he takes academic research proposed in academic fields such as psychology, sociology, and anthropology and he extrapolates these ideas into popular culture to cater to a much broader audience. Taken in this context, I think you'll have a much different experience reading his work.
  - kragen 15y ago
    Oh, I love reading his work; I think he's the best storyteller alive today. I've just been caught taking his stories a little too seriously a few times, and I want to save other people from the same fate.

by imjk 15y ago

kragen 15y ago

> Is it unreasonable to think that if someone has put in ten thousand hours into a general field such as programming (across various languages, as opposed to just focus on one language) that there are enough general principles to extrapolate for them to be considered an expert programmer? Well, maybe. But maybe Jeff Fox is right, and you really need ten thousand hours of programming in Forth to perform at an expert level programming in Forth. And, given IBM's historical turnover, it wouldn't be surprising if performing at an expert level maintaining DB2 required not just ten thousand hours of programming, but ten thousand hours of programming in PL/M on DB2, in order to know your way around that particular codebase well enough to perform well. Certainly the ramp-up time is likely to be longer on that codebase than on something more modern. But maybe we should go in the other direction — maybe Bill Gates is right, and it only takes a year or two of programming to perform within an epsilon of your best possible performance, and it's really something broader, like "engineering design of artifacts with human users", that needs a whole ten thousand hours of practice to master — not merely programming as such. My point is that these can't all be correct. Being an expert at engineering design of artifacts with human users implies that you're an expert at programming, which implies that you're an expert at programming in any context: in Forth, in PL/M in the core of DB2, on the space shuttle. Being an expert surgeon entails being expert at tying sutures, but it surely doesn't entail spending ten thousand hours practicing the tying of sutures.

imjk 15y ago
I think you're correct and I still don't think you invalidate Gladwell's point. Remember Gladwell originally proposed his idea on what it takes to become a "genius" to dispel the conventional notion of what it takes to become the Bill Gates's, Wayne Gretzkys, and Mozarts of the world. He's challenging the notion that these geniuses achieved their success by way of some innate talent in their fields. Whereas, he applies the ten thousand hours theory to show that the idea of some innate genius is a myth, but rather requires much work to achieve that level of success (not that profound). I think it's hard to argue with this point. Where you (and many other people including myself) find trouble in Gladwell's work is that it's too cursory and often overreaching. It's true that he's doesn't go into the specifics of various fields in defining the specific areas that each requires to achieve that genius level. But such a study would be extremely exhausting, if not impossible. It's also not where Gladwell sees his role; he's a pop scientist, not an academic. His job isn't to take academic studies and dig deeper. Quite the opposite. As a pop scientist, he takes academic research proposed in academic fields such as psychology, sociology, and anthropology and he extrapolates these ideas into popular culture to cater to a much broader audience. Taken in this context, I think you'll have a much different experience reading his work.
- kragen 15y ago
  Oh, I love reading his work; I think he's the best storyteller alive today. I've just been caught taking his stories a little too seriously a few times, and I want to save other people from the same fate.