3 ms·
> 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 soc
by 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]