This either/or between effort and genes is ridiculous.
Isn't it possible that something interesting is happening between those 10,000 hours? Isn't is possible that successful families not only instill success in their offspring through special training, but also suppress success in other people's children? Nobody here is talking about the role of tripping your opponent as he approaches the finishing line, or of the first born queen bee murdering her rivals before they're born. We're far too focused on positive attributes of competition.
The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth
91–100 of 124 posts
Re: The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> I mean, you're likely in top 6-7% of football players just by being on your high school's team. 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.
From the rough numbers I could find in a FIFA document, if you even play soccer by their definition, you're in only 4% of global population.
That includes schools, street football, and occasional players. If you drop the occasional part? About 2% of global population. That's still including schools and street games, corporate teams, etc.
So, just playing with any seriousness puts you in the top 2% of global population for soccer.
If you're a registered player, it cuts the number down to 1 in 4. So about 0.5% of global population. Im not sure registered players are, as a rule, better, but someone who is a serious player and registered stands a good chance of being top 1% globally -- something I think anyone with effort could do.
Being a professional soccer player puts you at about 1 in 100,000 globally, and 1 in 1,000 of people who play more than occasionally. (And 1 in 2,000 of people who play at all.)
I suspect that this is because I only looked at the NFL, which would be more like only top-tier teams, not all professionals.
The point being: the numbers actually are pretty darn close, and soccer seems to confirm my point about top 5% being relatively doable and top 1% being just effort.
Re: The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth
#93Re: The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth
#94> But this information could just as easily be used to identify children with the least genetic potential for academic success and channel them into the best schools. This would probably create a more equal society than the one we have, and it would do so by identifying those who are likely to face learning challenges and provide them with the support they might need.
Sounds like Harrison Bergeron to me: why not invest those resources into the best minds, who can increase the standard of living for all mankind, rather than investing them only to raise folks to average?
Of course, in reality one would invest a little here and a little there, but it is a zero-sum game: every resource used to help the unintelligent succeed is a resource not expended to help the intelligent exceed.
Re: The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth
#95Gladwell did a bait and switch, in his book first ignoring the role of talent, and then when pressed for more details, clarifying that the 10,000 hour rule applies to those who already have talent but then practiced 10,00 hours to hone such talent. http://greyenlightenment.com/malcolm-gladwell-bait-and-switc... I think the amended version of '10,000 hours' is closer to being correct, and probably not the one the publ…
Let's hear what Ericsson says:
https://www.salon.com/2016/04/10/malcolm_gladwell_got_us_wro...
Re: The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth
#96This 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.
Let's read the Ericsson's short correction:
https://www.salon.com/2016/04/10/malcolm_gladwell_got_us_wro...
Re: The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth
#97This assumption that you either excel at something or you should just do something else is as dumb as saying that you either become a billionaire or you might as well live on the streets. 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 does…
>excel at something or you should just do something else
To quote G.K. Chesterton: Anything worth doing is worth doing poorly.
Re: The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth
#98Gladwell did a bait and switch, in his book first ignoring the role of talent, and then when pressed for more details, clarifying that the 10,000 hour rule applies to those who already have talent but then practiced 10,00 hours to hone such talent. http://greyenlightenment.com/malcolm-gladwell-bait-and-switc... I think the amended version of '10,000 hours' is closer to being correct, and probably not the one the publ…
I'm sure you can attain mastery in anything by practicing for 10,000 hours. Hard work beats talent when talent fails to work hard. The caveat is that you will not be the best. You might not even be world class. Or even national class. But you are going to be better than somebody who practiced only 1,000 hours no matter how talented they are. What people forget is that at the very high levels of achievement in any fie…
>But you are going to be better than somebody who practiced only 1,000 hours no matter how talented they are. //
I disagree. You'll probably be better than the average 1000-hour practicee but not necessarily any particular one. Some people really do have a knack [innate talent] for certain things.
Re: The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
Matthew Seyd (the Author of Bounce: The Myth of Talent ) absolutely makes the argument that there is not minimum requirements for an activity by denying any form of genetic predisposition (or 'talent') for any activity. He puts skill at any activity, from 100m sprinting to fine arts, down purely to practice and does some amazing logical fallacies to get there.
He puts skill at any activity, from 100m sprinting to fine arts, down purely to practice and does some amazing logical fallacies to get there. How does he deal with the fact that certain body types are more conducive to sprinting? Or does he just ignore that altogether?
Yeah, because there's literally nothing 99.99% of people on Earth can do to get them close to Usain Bolt's physical advantages as a sprinter. Sure, he had to work hard to maximize his ability, but that work plus his freakish body means smashing 100 and 200 meter records.
Re: The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth
#100Gladwell 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.
Seems like at first he was saying talent was mostly a myth, and then backed off a little when challenged and said that talent matters some, as a prerequisite or what have you. But I've heard him on the radio talking about how Wayne Gretzky was the best ever at his sport not because of talent, but because of love of the game. Apparently, Gretzky just loved hockey more than anyone else. I guess there are no Rudy's in hockey.