11–20 of 124 posts
2014 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…
Gladwell 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.
The worst is when people give themselves excuses and say, "I don't have natural talent, I can't learn math." Well sure, if you don't have natural talent you might not be Paul Erdős, but you can still get through calculus.
This 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.
I aim to be "ok" in about 20 hrs of deliberate practice. Hell the FAA says you can fly plane in 40.
http://expertenough.com/1423/deliberate-practice
However in Ericsson's book he puts more emphasis on guidance by an expert teacher (who can help identify specific challenges appropriate to the learner).
Just because marketing the top 1% is easier doesn't mean the rest is crap. Just because you won't be the next Bill Gates doesn't mean you shouldn't start (and enjoy building) your own software company.
Even the 10k hours theory doesn't explain why some people can practice for so long but others can't. So, clearly, we all start at different positions in life.
Do I consider myself one of the best at my profession?? Not even close. Probably wouldn't even rate myself in the top 1/3rd of the worlds programmers. I've met guys who have been alive less time than I have been programming who can run rings around me, code wise.
I also play guitar, been doing so for longer than I have been programming, but I am a very stop/start type of player. Sometimes I will play guitar for 1 to 2 hours per day for a month or two straight, then I will put the instrument away for a year or more and not touch it because of things like a new baby arriving in our family, or work commitments etc.
When I don't touch the guitar for a while and come back to it after a long break, I am like a beginner again. I cannot remember any of the melodies that I had studied so hard even a few months before, and I feel like I am a newbie learning again. After a long spell of consistent, deliberate practice (as Gladwell expounds), I feel as if I am playing at a normal level again. [0]
Is that really what the 10K hours are about? Simply keeping the muscle and neural memory current, flexible and able to translate intentions quicker? It makes sense that constant practice keeps the fingers deft, and ensures your brain synapses are focused on the task of playing, rather than getting distracted with a million other things.
Deliberate 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 schoo…
Not being from the US, I thought you were talking about soccer for a second, and your number did not make any sense at all. But that only confirms your point, in a way: if everyone does something, being part of the top would be much more difficult.