The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth
businessinsider.com
The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth
1–10 of 124 posts
Re: The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth
#2Site requires scripts to read any content on. I don't like running code from random websites, so I don't. Can't comment on the article.
I will guess that the 'cruel myth' is that anyone can spent the requisite time and do anything. (Some people just don't get / can't get X, even if they want to and try really hard.)
Re: The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth
#3Site requires scripts to read any content on. I don't like running code from random websites, so I don't. Can't comment on the article. I will guess that the 'cruel myth' is that anyone can spent the requisite time and do anything. (Some people just don't get / can't get X, even if they want to and try really hard.)
The Business Insider article links this[0] one as the original article in the footnote. It's very similar and also worth a read (and I think it shouldn't require running code to be read)
[0]: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...
Re: The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth
#4I aim to be "ok" in about 20 hrs of deliberate practice. Hell the FAA says you can fly plane in 40.
Re: The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth
#5I have a chronic quarrel with psychologists who talk about advancements in science, technology and math from an ivory tower of the social sciences and not from the trenches. Far too many discoveries happen as a result of serendipity and/or hard work. As Terence Tao said, you might not be as smart as grothendieck,but you can still make your own advancements in your corner of math.
Re: The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth
#6Deliberate practice won't make you top 1% material in most things, since at higher levels everyone's working hard and genetically gifted. But it'll get you pretty far assuming you don't have any physical disadvantages (like being quadriplegic and wanting to be a kickboxer).
Re: The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth
#72014 article, and the pushback on Gladwell's book began almost as soon as it came out. I think there is a certain level of misunderstanding the argument he makes, in that it is assumed that the person engaging in the practice meets the minimum requirements for the activity. If you can't amass enough muscle mass, no amount of practice will make you into an NFL lineman. The problem is that in more complex activities or in areas of aesthetics like the arts, what the required level of talent to attain a high level is hard to quantify or recognize.
Re: The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth
#8Deliberate practice won't make you top 1% material in most things, since at higher levels everyone's working hard and genetically gifted. But it'll get you pretty far assuming you don't have any physical disadvantages (like being quadriplegic and wanting to be a kickboxer).
I would guess that you can be top 1% of the general population in most things (and probably even like 5% of the field) just by trying really hard.
I mean, you're likely in top 6-7% of football players just by being on your high school's team. (1mil football players in HS, 15mil students; random Google numbers)
I would guess with effort, and I mean a lot of effort, pretty much anyone could make top 20% of a high school team. That puts you in 1% land.
The NFL has an average career length between 3 and 6 years, and has under 2000 players. So it's only 0.2% of high school players, or 0.01% of the population. (I just pretended average career length was 4 years, so it lines up with a translated HS cohort.)
This sort of makes sense: you can make 5% relatively easily, and 1% with serious effort. But top of the top professionals are 1 in 10,000, and to be that good you have to make it your life's work (plus it helps to be genetically predisposed).
Ed: Just wanted to add, to be top 1% of the NFL means, literally, you're one-in-a-million.
Re: The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth
#9Gladwell never claimed that we're all given equal potential though. Most of the book is focused on the gains from deliberate practice amongst those who already are genetically set up to succeed. In fact, a central point is about how practice helps to amplify those initial advantages not diminish them.
Re: The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth
#10This article doesn't clarify that the exceptional students who had completed approx. 10,000 hours of deliberate practice were only 20 years old. It was said that violinists had only truly mastered the instrument by 30-40, by which time they had far more than 10,000 hours of practice.
Gladwell misquoted Ericsson. Read Ericsson's book, Peak. Get your facts right.