7 ms·

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

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]
iainctduncan 4y ago
Ah but this is him defending himself after the fact. The book most definitely does create the "sufficient" impression, and deliberately, because it's such a nice story. This is attested to by the takeaways most people have from it. If they got the wrong impression, either he wrote it wrong or he's a shit writer - or both. Now he back pedals because he got called out on the bs. Don't get me wrong, he's a very good story teller. But he's a complete crap "popular science" writer

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]

iainctduncan 4y ago

Ah but this is him defending himself after the fact. The book most definitely does create the "sufficient" impression, and deliberately, because it's such a nice story. This is attested to by the takeaways most people have from it. If they got the wrong impression, either he wrote it wrong or he's a shit writer - or both. Now he back pedals because he got called out on the bs. Don't get me wrong, he's a very good story teller. But he's a complete crap "popular science" writer