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

111–120 of 124 posts

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

#111

Post by lazyant »

Swizec wrote: post #38
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'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…

> you (practicing for 10,000 hours) are going to be better than somebody who practiced only 1,000 hours no matter how talented they are.

There's a lot of counter-examples that contradict that statement, at least in areas like sports, chess, probably music as well, were a very "talented" individual achieved in one year what other people haven't in ten.

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

#112

Post by sdflkd »

comboy wrote: post #53
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 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 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.

This feeds into the myth of passion equating talent/skill, which has been incorrect in my (admittedly short) experience. I can think of more than a few athletes who had no passion for the game but were phenomenal players.

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

#113

Post by Clubber »

LanceH wrote: post #87
Clubber wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The quickest path to success is having rich relatives and friends. Everyone should just pursue that. All joking aside, even if they are placebos (and Myer's Briggs certainly is), whatever it takes to motivate people towards excellence to me would be a positive.

Ten thousand hours of deliberate practice is hardly a placebo.

It is if it doesn't actually solve the problem it is being sold to solve.

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

#114

Post by dredmorbius »

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…

There's Mark Ames's claimed tobacco links.

https://pando.com/2015/07/07/shillers-killers/b3741e29bc9adb...

Gladwell denies this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/08/malcolm-gladwell-sm...

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

#116

Post by dayvough »

hardwaresofton wrote: post #64

Could people stop just reading one thing and then living their lives by it? Whether it's Myer's Briggs, or 10,000 hour rule, or some other self-help book with a reasonable premise -- I feel like most of the time it's just some reasonable premise taken to an extreme. Yes, if you want to be good at something, you'll have to practice a lot. Yes, practicing mindfully is better than just putting in hours. Yes, there are d…

"Sometimes it's better to have no map versus having a wrong map." (Paraphrased)

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

#117

Post by matthewvincent »

comboy wrote: post #53
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 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…

Bob Ross really was a well of creative wisdom. I've been enjoying watching through all the episodes of his show on Netflix.

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

#118

Post by Jack000 »

comboy wrote: post #53
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 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…

Personally I don't enjoy the mechanics of coding. I do like solving problems, and coding is generally the means to that end.

that said, it's also very possible that I'm not a great coder

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

#120

Post by Ellahn »

sametmax wrote: post #71
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…

> everyone starts on even ground No everyone doesn't. Some people are born sick, some have better cardio, some take more weight easily, some people are born twice as big, some grow very little... And it's the same with mind abilities. Your mind have various qualities, and you are not born equals to others. Some can concentrate better, some can abstract less, some more creative, some are shy. Add all the differences,…

OK, I didn't consider health issues.

And obviously some people have easier or harder times. I am simply more aligned with modern humanist psychology, believing environment is way more relevant than genetics.

This doesn't mean you're at fault for sometimes having a hard time keeping up, this just means that it's most likely not in your genes.

Post reply on HN