Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 124 posts

Re: The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth

#101

Post by watwut »

Ellahn wrote: post #39

Assumes Correlation and Causation, ignores Social and Economic situations of the twins groups, doesn't account for the fact that identical twins tend to share (being geared towards) more experiences due to being perceived almost as a single "being", ignores cultural differences in upbringing of different-gender twins, doesn't account for indirect training (i.e. strategy, memorization, sequential steps etc. are parts…

Finger length is relevant factor in piano play. Most people dont hear soinds as well as pro-musicians, our ears webe born less good. That would be talent. More generally, fine motor skills are simply not equal between children even when the kid tries hard.

The importance of right genes is pretty clear when you look at sports. Different sports favor different body types and if you don't have one, you won't suceed.

Re: The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth

#102

Post by loader »

vidarh wrote: post #40
cyberferret wrote: post #19

I am always intrigued by the 10KH argument. Here's my story - I just turned 50 last year. Been programming for nearly 35 years of that time. Not just 10,000 hours here - I think we are talking well over 1,000 individual applications and utilities over that time. 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 m…

My sons violin teacher made the point to him after observing him practice (paraphrased): "What you are doing is playing, not practice. When you play through a piece like that, you spend most of your time on the bits you already know, and just a little time on the parts you find difficult, and you end up not repeating the hard parts very often. To practice, you should stop when you find something difficult, and repeat…

Get out of your comfort zone, the more time you spend out there the more comfortable it will become.

I realised this first when learning to snowboard, I found I progressed the best when I did the hard runs. An easy day going down some green runs didn't really help me progress. It was when I pushed myself to try the harder runs that I seemed to progress the quickest.

Re: The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth

#103

Post by tracker1 »

paulpauper wrote: post #28

Gladwell 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 would say that most people can do most jobs or handle most skills with sufficient practice. Natural ability and drive probably account for more. The person who will naturally practice their craft on their own time, or beyond that of a job, be it in an educational setting, self taught or some mixture including work time probably accounts for far more than anything.

Mindset and approach can be incredibly influential. And sometimes people want to be/do things they just can't handle. It's a range, not black and white.

Edit: I say this as someone who learned software development on his own, and has no formal higher education. That said, I spend 5-10 hours a week learning and expanding my knowledge and have for nearly two decades now.

Of those I have worked with, individual drive has been the leading differentiator in terms of quality that I've seen. Even if they no longer dedicate any of their own time anymore.

Re: The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth

#104

Post by gok2 »

paulpauper wrote: post #28

Gladwell 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…

"how I taught myself physics in one year" links pls

Re: The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth

#105

Post by chias »

Lxr wrote: post #57
comboy wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the most part of the talent is that your brain likes doing given thing. You enjoy it. That is, unless somebody is forced to, she's unlikely to spend 10K hours on something she doesn't like. "Talent is a pursued interest. Anything that you're willing to practice, you can do." - Bob Ross But it doesn't mean that anybody can achieve anything. Just that one can become a master in a field in which he's happy to pu…

> I'm yet to meet a great coder who wouldn't enjoy coding. Maybe great coders like it so much because they are good at it. It would be reasonable from an evolutionary point of view to focus on what we are better than others at. At university I have seen people get into a field on the basis of an unexpected excellent grade and conclude they love it, and reject whole fields as stupid and uninteresting after failing - w…

> Maybe great coders like it so much because they are good at it.

I think there's more to it than that. When I first started writing code it was pretty clear that I was not very good at it (at the time), but absolutely loved it anyway. Man, the rush of power when you realize you can get the computer to obey you... that's what got me hooked.

Re: The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth

#106

Post by twblalock »

avinassh wrote: post #29
twblalock wrote: post #14

Malcolm Gladwell should not be taken seriously.

why is that?

He makes broad, oversimplified generalizations that are not supported by the research he cites.

This is a problem with science writing in general, but Gladwell is especially pernicious because he has a good writing style and good marketing.

Re: The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth

#107

Post by mcguire »

"For example, yet another recent twin study (and the Karolinska Institute study) found that there was a genetic influence on practicing music. Pushing someone into a career for which he or she is genetically unsuited will likely not work."

Out of curiosity, has anyone replicated this kind of genetic study for professional musicians? It would be interesting to know how many just really don't have the talent.

Re: The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth

#108

Post by ktRolster »

goatlover wrote: post #99
ktRolster wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's a thought worth discussing, but you didn't answer the question at all.

Re: The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth

#109

Post by abandonliberty »

paulpauper wrote: post #28

Gladwell 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…

Gladwell's writing is seductive, providing surprising insight which appears to make complex phenomena understandable and manageable.

Unfortunately, I fact checked him. He's an entertainment writer at best, an intentional distributor of misinformation packaged as research at worst.

Examples:

Blink featured John Gottman's research into relationships. He could predict relationship outcomes with 91% accuracy. Unfortunately he never split out a test dataset and the model was overfit; real world accuracy is no better than existing techniques. This was known at publish time.

Tipping Point drove companies to seek out Mavens and Connectors, only to find that they don't really exist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tipping_Point#Scientific

For an actual evidence-based review of many Malcolm concepts, I recommend "Everything Is Obvious: Once You Know the Answer".

Re: The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth

#110

Post by igouy »

mtrimpe wrote: post #54
rapsey wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As with anything in the real world there is always a "yes but" and "it depends". 10k hours succeeded because it is generally the right idea. It's not a mathematical rule. Some common sense is still required. You can't stop people interpreting it to hear only what they want to hear.

If people would actual read the book Peak they'd understand that it isn't even about those 10k hours. What Ericsson says is that what creates peak performance is studying just beyond the edge of your comfort zone with (as much) personal feedback (as possible) from an experienced mentor; so not just playing around a bit by yourself. For quite a few fields 'expert' levels happen to come down to about 10k hours of such…

We can show them the authors summary

https://www.salon.com/2016/04/10/malcolm_gladwell_got_us_wro...

Post reply on HN