5 ms·

The article is about the degree to which deliberate practice helps you in various fields, it's not actually about the specific 10,000 hour rule. The thesis of t

by x1798DE 12y ago

The article is about the degree to which deliberate practice helps you in various fields, it's not actually about the specific 10,000 hour rule. The thesis of the article is that, essentially, deliberate practice does not have a large effect on your effectiveness in fields which do not have unchanging, rigid structures (like games whose rules don't change). As a rule, I reserve judgement about any "new study", but also as a rule I think that anything Malcolm Gladwell says is bullshit, so I'm torn on this one.

pjscott 12y ago
I had the same torn reaction, but upon reading the full text (thanks, Gwern!) I'm no longer conflicted: it's not really a new study, so much as it is a systematic review of roughly a decade of relevant literature. Malcolm Gladwell seems to have based his claims mainly on a widely-cited Hot New Study from 1993, which has since turned out to have been overblown: later studies on the importance of deliberate practice have almost all come up with lower values for the correlation between deliberate practice hours and performance. So, it looks like ignoring Malcolm Gladwell was the right answer here. It usually is.
- gwern 12y ago
  You're welcome. > later studies on the importance of deliberate practice have almost all come up with lower values for the correlation between deliberate practice hours and performance. What's also really interesting is the differences in the kind of data used to measure deliberate practice: daily logs, which you'd think be the most accurate, showed the least correlation with performance, while retrospective interviews showed the most. Biases in recollection or researcher allegiance?
Hasknewbie 12y ago
I believe he goes by the name Explaino The Clown these days.
PM_Tech 12y ago
I am wary of anyone who makes blanket statements like "anything Malcolm Gladwell says is bullshit." You simulataneously discount his entire canon of work and also every single underlying scientific paper he has quoted, cited or referenced. That is a lot of work to label bullshit.
- x1798DE 12y ago
  Obviously not everything that Malcolm Gladwell says is bullshit, that was hyperoble. If he said the sky was blue I wouldn't disbelieve him, but I would check my watch to see if it's sunrise or sunset. It's also ridiculous to jump from "anything Malcolm Gladwell says is bullshit" to discounting everything he quotes, cites or references. He draws conclusions and makes cases from these things, in a way that is, frankly, not justified. Also, what are you wary about? You can check every statement I've made on this subject by reading the article. It's not long. You don't have to bother deciding whether or not to be suspicious of me.
  - PM_Tech 12y ago
    Why is it ridiculous to take your statements as you say them? I am at a loss. Your hyperbole continues with "He draws conclusions and makes cases from these things, in a way that is, frankly, not justified." So nothing that Gladwell writes has justification? Seems like you have a deep hatred of his writing and are unable to critique his ideas objectively. I read the article; I have read the 10 years/10,000 hours peice and it's detractors numerous times. I don't use that one argument to tear down a man's work though. People fixate on one part of one chapter. His study of the Gore-Tex working practices and racism in the Caribbean I thought were particularly excellent.
    - wpietri 12y ago
      You didn't take his statements as he said them. He said, "as a rule, I think", but you dropped that part, increasing the drama and giving you something to yell at. The guy was clearly indicating a general skepticism of Gladwell, not saying that every single sentence he had ever written was false. Protip: If somebody apparently smart says something that you interpret as being completely idiotic, take some time to see if you can find another interpretation.
mathattack 12y ago
False versus False? Gladwell's paper was so explicit that I thought it couldn't possibly be true, despite the niceties of "We'd like practice to be important" The best programmers (and martial artists, and runners, and basketball players) I personally know are the ones who practiced the most, but I've struggled with causation and correlation. They generally got early head starts, and kept plowing ahead.
- baddox 12y ago
  The direction of causation is key. I think people with natural propensity (what you might call "talent") are more likely to practice hard than those who struggle to see results from their practice.
  - mathattack 12y ago
    Exactly why it's tough to tease apart.
- Houshalter 12y ago
  That's possible, but it should also be easy to test, shouldn't it? Just measure how much people improve over time based on practice. Or how "naturals" compare to people who weren't very good at first, but kept practicing. Competitive multiplayer video games would have this kind of data. Or even all types of video games.
mtdewcmu 12y ago
Malcolm Gladwell's articles can be very enjoyable reading[1]. I suppose you have to bear in mind that he's not an expert on anything besides writing. [1] http://gladwell.com/category/the-new-yorker-archive/ http://gladwell.com/category/the-new-yorker-archive/
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

by x1798DE 12y ago

pjscott 12y ago

I had the same torn reaction, but upon reading the full text (thanks, Gwern!) I'm no longer conflicted: it's not really a new study, so much as it is a systematic review of roughly a decade of relevant literature. Malcolm Gladwell seems to have based his claims mainly on a widely-cited Hot New Study from 1993, which has since turned out to have been overblown: later studies on the importance of deliberate practice have almost all come up with lower values for the correlation between deliberate practice hours and performance. So, it looks like ignoring Malcolm Gladwell was the right answer here. It usually is.

gwern 12y ago
You're welcome. > later studies on the importance of deliberate practice have almost all come up with lower values for the correlation between deliberate practice hours and performance. What's also really interesting is the differences in the kind of data used to measure deliberate practice: daily logs, which you'd think be the most accurate, showed the least correlation with performance, while retrospective interviews showed the most. Biases in recollection or researcher allegiance?

Hasknewbie 12y ago

I believe he goes by the name Explaino The Clown these days.

PM_Tech 12y ago

I am wary of anyone who makes blanket statements like "anything Malcolm Gladwell says is bullshit." You simulataneously discount his entire canon of work and also every single underlying scientific paper he has quoted, cited or referenced. That is a lot of work to label bullshit.

x1798DE 12y ago
Obviously not everything that Malcolm Gladwell says is bullshit, that was hyperoble. If he said the sky was blue I wouldn't disbelieve him, but I would check my watch to see if it's sunrise or sunset. It's also ridiculous to jump from "anything Malcolm Gladwell says is bullshit" to discounting everything he quotes, cites or references. He draws conclusions and makes cases from these things, in a way that is, frankly, not justified. Also, what are you wary about? You can check every statement I've made on this subject by reading the article. It's not long. You don't have to bother deciding whether or not to be suspicious of me.
- PM_Tech 12y ago
  Why is it ridiculous to take your statements as you say them? I am at a loss. Your hyperbole continues with "He draws conclusions and makes cases from these things, in a way that is, frankly, not justified." So nothing that Gladwell writes has justification? Seems like you have a deep hatred of his writing and are unable to critique his ideas objectively. I read the article; I have read the 10 years/10,000 hours peice and it's detractors numerous times. I don't use that one argument to tear down a man's work though. People fixate on one part of one chapter. His study of the Gore-Tex working practices and racism in the Caribbean I thought were particularly excellent.
  - wpietri 12y ago
    You didn't take his statements as he said them. He said, "as a rule, I think", but you dropped that part, increasing the drama and giving you something to yell at. The guy was clearly indicating a general skepticism of Gladwell, not saying that every single sentence he had ever written was false. Protip: If somebody apparently smart says something that you interpret as being completely idiotic, take some time to see if you can find another interpretation.

mathattack 12y ago

False versus False? Gladwell's paper was so explicit that I thought it couldn't possibly be true, despite the niceties of "We'd like practice to be important" The best programmers (and martial artists, and runners, and basketball players) I personally know are the ones who practiced the most, but I've struggled with causation and correlation. They generally got early head starts, and kept plowing ahead.

baddox 12y ago
The direction of causation is key. I think people with natural propensity (what you might call "talent") are more likely to practice hard than those who struggle to see results from their practice.
- mathattack 12y ago
  Exactly why it's tough to tease apart.
Houshalter 12y ago
That's possible, but it should also be easy to test, shouldn't it? Just measure how much people improve over time based on practice. Or how "naturals" compare to people who weren't very good at first, but kept practicing. Competitive multiplayer video games would have this kind of data. Or even all types of video games.

mtdewcmu 12y ago

Malcolm Gladwell's articles can be very enjoyable reading[1]. I suppose you have to bear in mind that he's not an expert on anything besides writing. [1] http://gladwell.com/category/the-new-yorker-archive/ http://gladwell.com/category/the-new-yorker-archive/

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]