By putting such an emphasis on practice, practice, practice at the expense of natural gifts, the popular interpretation of the 10,000-hour rule does a tremendou

By putting such an emphasis on practice, practice, practice at the expense of natural gifts, the popular interpretation of the 10,000-hour rule does a tremendous disservice to the naturally gifted. Cry me a river. How are "naturally gifted" persons disserved by thorough research on human performance? This article seems to illustrate the adage that "the adjective is the enemy of the noun," because not once in this excerpt from a longer book is the word "deliberate" used, and yet K. Anders Ericsson (an eminent researcher on the development of expertise) http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson.dp.html http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson.dp.html has long taken care to put the adjective "deliberate" in front of the word "practice" as he writes about how expertise develops. (The article kindly submitted here correctly says, "New Yorker writer Malcolm Gladwell didn’t invent the rule, but he did popularize it through his best-selling book Outliers.") The 10,000-hour rule, originally formulated as a ten-year rule in studies of musicology a few decades ago, has mostly been researched by Ericsson and other researchers influenced by Ericsson's publications. Ericsson carefully distinguishes "deliberate practice," which ordinarily requires a coach who can monitor the learner's performance, from "playful engagement," which doesn't focus the learner's attention on improved performance in the same way. Many critics of Ericsson's work seem to miss this distinction. I wonder, as an observer of young people learning programming, how much a dumb computer's literal interpretation of programs input into the computer provides relentless deliberate practice in better programming, even for people who are mostly messing around playfully. Perhaps in learning programming, the inanimate computer can serve as a coach for many learners. I would NOT expect someone devoting 10,000 hours to writing essays for fun, if the essays are never read by any critical readers, to improve as much as a writer as someone devoting 10,000 hours to writing programs (if the learner of programmer pays attention to whether the programs compile and run) would improve as a programmer. People who engage in deliberate practice to improve sports performance routinely have coaches, and also participate routinely in competitions that put their assimilation of the sports skills to the test. In general, a lot of people misread the tenor of Ericsson's research, which is the subject of an interesting new book, The Complexity of Greatness, edited by Scott Barry Kaufman. http://www.amazon.com/The-Complexity-Greatness-Beyond-Practice/dp/0199794006/ http://www.amazon.com/The-Complexity-Greatness-Beyond-Practi... Ericsson is sure that raw talent (whatever that is) alone is NOT sufficient to be an "expert," properly so called, but rather has research-based reasons to believe that deliberate practice is strictly necessary for expert performance in all domains. He thinks it is an open question whether or not something like preexisting talent is even necessary for expertise, or whether sustained deliberate practice by itself might be sufficient to make into an expert someone who initially appeared not to have "talent" for a particular domain. That is an ongoing program of research, as Ericsson's publications http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson.dp.html http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson.dp.html make clear. And of course Paul Graham had something to say about this issue in his essay "What You'll Wish You'd Known" (January 2005). http://paulgraham.com/hs.html http://paulgraham.com/hs.html "Don't think that you can't do what other people can. And I agree you shouldn't underestimate your potential. People who've done great things tend to seem as if they were a race apart. And most biographies only exaggerate this illusion, partly due to the worshipful attitude biographers inevitably sink into, and partly because, knowing how the story ends, they can't help streamlining the plot till it seems like the subject's life was a matter of destiny, the mere unfolding of some innate genius. In fact I suspect if you had the sixteen year old Shakespeare or Einstein in school with you, they'd seem impressive, but not totally unlike your other friends. "Which is an uncomfortable thought. If they were just like us, then they had to work very hard to do what they did. And that's one reason we like to believe in genius. It gives us an excuse for being lazy. If these guys were able to do what they did only because of some magic Shakespeareness or Einsteinness, then it's not our fault if we can't do something as good. "I'm not saying there's no such thing as genius. But if you're trying to choose between two theories and one gives you an excuse for being lazy, the other one is probably right."