7 ms·

The Gladwell book is so bad it's laughable. It's a gross misrepresentation of the work of Anders Ericsson, with completely unfounded extrapolations. So bad it p

The Gladwell book is so bad it's laughable. It's a gross misrepresentation of the work of Anders Ericsson, with completely unfounded extrapolations. So bad it prompted Ericsson to get a non-academic writer to work with him to write his own popular science version of his work, which is titled "Peak". Outliers is the worst example I know of of popular authors bending facts to make a narrative they want to tell. In a nutshell, Ericsson never said "10k hours will make you world class" or "it takes 10k hours for mastery". He said (BIG simplifying paraphrase here) "the most notable difference we saw in elite performers between sub-elites and elites was practice, with most elites having achieved roughly 10k hours, or 10 years of 3 hours a day". He also limited this to PRACTICE, a part Gladwell totally missed. (ie the Beatles example is complete bullshit, gigs are not practice). He never said it was either necessary (lots of music prodigies are world class in way less) or sufficient (literally millions of people do 10k hours and get just decent). So... throw that book in the garbage and make your decision on other criteria. There are many, many good books on learning and performance, but not by popular hacks like Gladwell. Anecdotally, I know lots of people who started new pursuits (and got very good), or successfully switched careers or started new businesses in their 40s. It's really not about age, it's about all the parameters that are typically associated with age. As in, by the time people hit their 40's, most people can no longer carve out the time to consistently spend time learning a new thing, and are way out of practice at learning. Most, not all. I know lots of professional musicians, for example, who took up some other hobby late in life and got very very good, because their entire life has been constructed around leaving time for effective learning, and they are experts at learning something on their own. If you can rearrange life to enable you to learn effectively (or found a company, or whatever), 43 is a great age.

michaelcao 4y ago
I like your opinion. I founded a startup at 40 as a part time job and it was a correct decision during covid19 crisis. My company is quite successful. It takes about 3000 hours to be sustainable. 10000 hours is an overrated term
- sam1r 4y ago
  That’s awesome! I’d love to hear more about this.
  - michaelcao 4y ago
    I posted about my journey in the hacker news post "A disabled 40-year-old person founded a startup and makes a living". Thanks for taking time to read my post. Have a great day
daveevad 4y ago
My favorite Gladwell book to rip on is Blink. It is 296 pages long and the main point was one only needs a few moments to understand complicated things.
- michaelcao 4y ago
  I haven't read the Blink yet. I will try to read it in the near future. Thanks for mentioning it.
  - swamp40 4y ago
    I suspect he was joking...
  - prepend 4y ago
    I think you should try to not read it as it’s bogus. Picking some examples where people made split second decisions that are correct is so silly it’s weird that the book even exists much less is a bestseller. It’s basic premise is that people make split second decisions but never goes into whether these are correct or incorrect. So it boils down to “sometimes people choose right” as it that was somehow novel or useful. He’s a fun storyteller but dangerous when people believe and make decisions based on his writings.
    - ghaff 4y ago
      I remember Tipping Point as being mostly OK. But it really triggered Gladwell's schtick of weaving a well-written entertaining narrative whether or not it's really supported by some cherry-picked anecdotes.
  - daveevad 4y ago
    If you finish it, you should probably read it again. ;)
  - dexterdog 4y ago
    I think he was making the opposite recommendation.
tinco 4y ago
There is a much better lesson to take from practice theory, and that's the skill curve. You might see it and think "oh it takes 10,000 hours to become a master". But it only takes 10 hours of practice to become better at something than literally almost everyone at any task. And in 100 hours of practice you would be considered a worthy peer in almost any community. 1000 hours will make you a respected professional in any trade. You can apply it to any life skill. You could learn a new musical instrument every 6 months, you could be a plumber, a carpenter, an electrician. You could make learn a new way of fabricating things. Any sport, any dance. I applied it as a programmer, dabbling in compilers, operating systems, machine learning systems, web systems, games, various languages and paradigms. Now as the CTO in a small company my "expertise" in all of these fields makes me able to talk along with every team, no matter what they're working on. You could be good enough in anything to impress a friend by practicing anything for 3 months. Not saying it's easy, real practice hurts your brain, not every day job leaves you with enough brain juice at the end of the day. But maybe you could practice in the morning. When I was in college I had been playing guitar on and off for maybe 10 years. I didn't like practicing much and was mostly just playing the same bits and riffs for fun. There was a youtube hype around a guy called Andy McKee who played technically challenging pieces with a really cool vibe. I didn't even attempt it, considering it above my skill level. My housemate who hadn't touched a guitar in all his life, bought a $30 guitar and practiced for 3 months. By the end he could play the full song good enough for it to actually sound good and impress basically anyone. I'm pretty sure he could make some money playing on a street corner just playing that 1 song over and over again. edit: the bootcamp I used to teach at trains junior developers from scratch in about 500 hours. If you pair them with a good mentor, employing them for about 500 hours more, and you'll have perfectly good software developers capable of maintaining and extending any existing product you have in your portfolio.
- iainctduncan 4y ago
  this is on the money. How good you need to be to do a job for a career - if that career is not performing in some insanely competitive field like sports or music - is so, so, so much lower than what we are talking about when discussing the practice history of elite performers. If you learn to practice correctly, and get a good teacher, you will be amazing to most people in 2000 hours - 3 years of consistent two hours a day of good practice produces a shit ton of expertise.
adamgordonbell 4y ago
Here's Gladwell himself: There is a lot of confusion about the 10,000 rule that I talk about in Outliers. Practice isn't a SUFFICIENT condition for success. I could play chess for 100 years and I'll never be a grandmaster. The point is simply that natural ability requires a huge investment of time in order to be made manifest. Unfortunately, sometimes complex ideas get oversimplified in translation. I don't get why people love to hate on him so much. He was just popularizing the idea that talent takes effort and is not predominantly innate. ( But I do agree the Beatles example is BS and contrary to the DP principles )
- MrsPeaches 4y ago
  > He never said it was either necessary (lots of music prodigies are world class in way less) Gladwell: "The point is simply that natural ability requires a huge investment of time in order to be made manifest" (emphasis added)
  - iainctduncan 4y ago
    But... this is wrong. The vast majority of the time, yes, but "requires" is a simplification. The amount of work required is massively variable and Gladwell skates right over that nuance. Prodigies exist! I've met some, they can be really nauseating to the rest of us, lol. There are more of them out there than you would think because they are often so screwed up in other ways that they don't become famous. Talk to anyone who has taught hundreds of music students and they can tell you some crazy stories. However, prodigies aren't much use if you can't count on them showing up to the gig. (Some savants are fortunate enough to get the support they need to function professionally, but many aren't)
- Grustaf 4y ago
  The guy is a walking TED talk. I don't hate him, but he's supremely annoying in his smug triteness.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
scifibestfi 4y ago
> (ie the Beatles example is complete bullshit, gigs are not practice) Why doesn't that count as practice?
- ghaff 4y ago
  Because you're doing the same thing over and over and don't have a lot of latitude to experiment. Mind you, there can be some value in repetition starting out especially if you make regular minor adjustments. But for someone already at a high skill level, just doing the same old activity probably won't help their skills much.
  - myheadasplode 4y ago
    Playing as a dance/cover band as they did (compared to, say, classical music), they had plenty of space to experiment. The critical aspect that's different from practicing with your band in a rehearsal space vs on stage is that you get to see how an audience actually responds to what you're doing, which is the whole point of the game. Every audience is different. A musician who's played 100 sets of songs alone in a room will have nowhere near the same level of insight as a musician who's played the same number of shows for an audience. As an instrumentalist, I can choose to play my part ahead of the beat, behind the beat, right on time, I can choose to embellish my part or play it as written, I can improvise a solo vs play something pre-planned, I can subtly vary the intensity of my playing, all while my bandmates are tweaking their performance in real time, too. There's also the telepathy you tend to develop with your bandmates when you're unable to stop a show and yell about mistakes or forgotten parts :)
- huimang 4y ago
  Performances aren't practice. Practice is sitting down and working on what needs development, and doing self-introspection. Performances are where all of those get put together for an audience.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
WheatMillington 4y ago
Have you actually read Outliers? Gladwell was very specific about practice, and how deliberate it needs to be. He emphasized the way the Beatles used their gig time as practice.
- iainctduncan 4y ago
  Yes I have, cover to cover. And it led me on to reading the original sources and then getting disgusted with Gladwell's shoddy job. Your example says it all.... gig time as practice is something only a non-musician and/or someone who really doesn't understand practice would say. He gives air time to the idea of deliberate practice and then uses examples that show how that he doesn't get it. AT ALL. I can only assume he came up with the Beatles example and thought it was such a compelling story that he was determined not to let the facts get in the way. Ericsson goes over his criteria for what deliberate practice is.... and nightly gigs are not it in the least! Read Ericsson and I'll be you will get disillusioned as did I.
Jayakumark 4y ago
Just curious to know about the books that are you referencing here for learning and performance.

michaelcao 4y ago

I like your opinion. I founded a startup at 40 as a part time job and it was a correct decision during covid19 crisis. My company is quite successful. It takes about 3000 hours to be sustainable. 10000 hours is an overrated term

sam1r 4y ago
That’s awesome! I’d love to hear more about this.
- michaelcao 4y ago
  I posted about my journey in the hacker news post "A disabled 40-year-old person founded a startup and makes a living". Thanks for taking time to read my post. Have a great day

daveevad 4y ago

My favorite Gladwell book to rip on is Blink. It is 296 pages long and the main point was one only needs a few moments to understand complicated things.

michaelcao 4y ago
I haven't read the Blink yet. I will try to read it in the near future. Thanks for mentioning it.
- swamp40 4y ago
  I suspect he was joking...
- prepend 4y ago
  I think you should try to not read it as it’s bogus. Picking some examples where people made split second decisions that are correct is so silly it’s weird that the book even exists much less is a bestseller. It’s basic premise is that people make split second decisions but never goes into whether these are correct or incorrect. So it boils down to “sometimes people choose right” as it that was somehow novel or useful. He’s a fun storyteller but dangerous when people believe and make decisions based on his writings.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    I remember Tipping Point as being mostly OK. But it really triggered Gladwell's schtick of weaving a well-written entertaining narrative whether or not it's really supported by some cherry-picked anecdotes.
- daveevad 4y ago
  If you finish it, you should probably read it again. ;)
- dexterdog 4y ago
  I think he was making the opposite recommendation.

tinco 4y ago

There is a much better lesson to take from practice theory, and that's the skill curve. You might see it and think "oh it takes 10,000 hours to become a master". But it only takes 10 hours of practice to become better at something than literally almost everyone at any task. And in 100 hours of practice you would be considered a worthy peer in almost any community. 1000 hours will make you a respected professional in any trade. You can apply it to any life skill. You could learn a new musical instrument every 6 months, you could be a plumber, a carpenter, an electrician. You could make learn a new way of fabricating things. Any sport, any dance. I applied it as a programmer, dabbling in compilers, operating systems, machine learning systems, web systems, games, various languages and paradigms. Now as the CTO in a small company my "expertise" in all of these fields makes me able to talk along with every team, no matter what they're working on. You could be good enough in anything to impress a friend by practicing anything for 3 months. Not saying it's easy, real practice hurts your brain, not every day job leaves you with enough brain juice at the end of the day. But maybe you could practice in the morning. When I was in college I had been playing guitar on and off for maybe 10 years. I didn't like practicing much and was mostly just playing the same bits and riffs for fun. There was a youtube hype around a guy called Andy McKee who played technically challenging pieces with a really cool vibe. I didn't even attempt it, considering it above my skill level. My housemate who hadn't touched a guitar in all his life, bought a $30 guitar and practiced for 3 months. By the end he could play the full song good enough for it to actually sound good and impress basically anyone. I'm pretty sure he could make some money playing on a street corner just playing that 1 song over and over again. edit: the bootcamp I used to teach at trains junior developers from scratch in about 500 hours. If you pair them with a good mentor, employing them for about 500 hours more, and you'll have perfectly good software developers capable of maintaining and extending any existing product you have in your portfolio.

iainctduncan 4y ago
this is on the money. How good you need to be to do a job for a career - if that career is not performing in some insanely competitive field like sports or music - is so, so, so much lower than what we are talking about when discussing the practice history of elite performers. If you learn to practice correctly, and get a good teacher, you will be amazing to most people in 2000 hours - 3 years of consistent two hours a day of good practice produces a shit ton of expertise.

adamgordonbell 4y ago

Here's Gladwell himself: There is a lot of confusion about the 10,000 rule that I talk about in Outliers. Practice isn't a SUFFICIENT condition for success. I could play chess for 100 years and I'll never be a grandmaster. The point is simply that natural ability requires a huge investment of time in order to be made manifest. Unfortunately, sometimes complex ideas get oversimplified in translation. I don't get why people love to hate on him so much. He was just popularizing the idea that talent takes effort and is not predominantly innate. ( But I do agree the Beatles example is BS and contrary to the DP principles )

MrsPeaches 4y ago
> He never said it was either necessary (lots of music prodigies are world class in way less) Gladwell: "The point is simply that natural ability requires a huge investment of time in order to be made manifest" (emphasis added)
- iainctduncan 4y ago
  But... this is wrong. The vast majority of the time, yes, but "requires" is a simplification. The amount of work required is massively variable and Gladwell skates right over that nuance. Prodigies exist! I've met some, they can be really nauseating to the rest of us, lol. There are more of them out there than you would think because they are often so screwed up in other ways that they don't become famous. Talk to anyone who has taught hundreds of music students and they can tell you some crazy stories. However, prodigies aren't much use if you can't count on them showing up to the gig. (Some savants are fortunate enough to get the support they need to function professionally, but many aren't)
Grustaf 4y ago
The guy is a walking TED talk. I don't hate him, but he's supremely annoying in his smug triteness.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

scifibestfi 4y ago

> (ie the Beatles example is complete bullshit, gigs are not practice) Why doesn't that count as practice?

ghaff 4y ago
Because you're doing the same thing over and over and don't have a lot of latitude to experiment. Mind you, there can be some value in repetition starting out especially if you make regular minor adjustments. But for someone already at a high skill level, just doing the same old activity probably won't help their skills much.
- myheadasplode 4y ago
  Playing as a dance/cover band as they did (compared to, say, classical music), they had plenty of space to experiment. The critical aspect that's different from practicing with your band in a rehearsal space vs on stage is that you get to see how an audience actually responds to what you're doing, which is the whole point of the game. Every audience is different. A musician who's played 100 sets of songs alone in a room will have nowhere near the same level of insight as a musician who's played the same number of shows for an audience. As an instrumentalist, I can choose to play my part ahead of the beat, behind the beat, right on time, I can choose to embellish my part or play it as written, I can improvise a solo vs play something pre-planned, I can subtly vary the intensity of my playing, all while my bandmates are tweaking their performance in real time, too. There's also the telepathy you tend to develop with your bandmates when you're unable to stop a show and yell about mistakes or forgotten parts :)
huimang 4y ago
Performances aren't practice. Practice is sitting down and working on what needs development, and doing self-introspection. Performances are where all of those get put together for an audience.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

WheatMillington 4y ago

Have you actually read Outliers? Gladwell was very specific about practice, and how deliberate it needs to be. He emphasized the way the Beatles used their gig time as practice.

iainctduncan 4y ago
Yes I have, cover to cover. And it led me on to reading the original sources and then getting disgusted with Gladwell's shoddy job. Your example says it all.... gig time as practice is something only a non-musician and/or someone who really doesn't understand practice would say. He gives air time to the idea of deliberate practice and then uses examples that show how that he doesn't get it. AT ALL. I can only assume he came up with the Beatles example and thought it was such a compelling story that he was determined not to let the facts get in the way. Ericsson goes over his criteria for what deliberate practice is.... and nightly gigs are not it in the least! Read Ericsson and I'll be you will get disillusioned as did I.

Jayakumark 4y ago

Just curious to know about the books that are you referencing here for learning and performance.