4 ms·
That's correct. He ignores and sometimes intentionally misconstrues the evidence in order to tell a compelling story. He makes bold claims that are not really b
by anbende 4y ago
That's correct. He ignores and sometimes intentionally misconstrues the evidence in order to tell a compelling story. He makes bold claims that are not really backed up by anything.
Take the 10,000 hours claim? Based on very little. There's nothing special about 10,000 hours. And the research roundly rejects the idea that deliberate practice is as big a factor as Gladwell claims.
- criddell 4y ago> the research roundly rejects the idea that deliberate practice is as big a factor as Gladwell claims Do you have more information on this? I know lots of social science studies have not stood the test of time, but I didn't know Anders Ericsson's paper had big problems.
- jasonwatkinspdx 4y agoEricsson wrote a pop science book to set the record straight. There's a whole chapter on what Gladwell got right vs wrong.
- nonameiguess 4y agoFrom Ericson: https://www.salon.com/2016/04/10/malcolm_gladwell_got_us_wrong_our_research_was_key_to_the_10000_hour_rule_but_heres_what_got_oversimplified/ https://www.salon.com/2016/04/10/malcolm_gladwell_got_us_wro...
- anbende 4y agoIt's not that deliberate practice isn't a big factor and very important. It's the idea that it's massively and overwhelmingly decisive. For example, this meta-analysis of sports performance found that deliberate practice was important but not overwhelmingly so, accounting of 18% of performance on average. It seems like there is a lot of plasticity in human performance, and it may be the case that many of us can get pretty good at a lot of things, but there also appear to be many factors distinct from practice that make substantial contributions to performance. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1745691616635591 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/174569161663559...
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]