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

Malcolm Gladwell's famous 10k hour rule isn't holding up in new research

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 71 posts

Re: Malcolm Gladwell's famous 10k hour rule isn't holding up in new research

#21

Post by kiba »

mrburton wrote: post #19

If this doesn't educate people on how important sales and communication is, then nothing will help you see the light. ;) Honestly, those who are excellent communicators will be able to persuade people in masses to follow what they preach. I find this extremely interesting. Now is the 10k hour rule flawed or not? I have no idea. I tend to focus on what works for me vs. the masses. We're all different.

If Gladwell is communicating false or misleading information, then we need to know about it rather than give a collective shrug. People will believe whatever Gladwell wrote, and that wastes everyone's time.

Re: Malcolm Gladwell's famous 10k hour rule isn't holding up in new research

#22

Post by pjscott »

Jerry2 wrote: post #14

Gladwell's most famous book, 'The Tipping Point', suffered a similar fate. It was largely predicated on the 'broken window theory' [1] which too was proven not to be valid [2]. After his book 'David and Goliath' received numerous bad reviews for oversimplifying things and pinning causes on things that don't make sense, Gladwell lashed out at his critics and basically said that his books are not written for experts. […

All of this is unsurprising, given Gladwell's process:

1. Take research findings in psychology, sociology, etc., all fields which are having big replication problems.

2. Pick out findings that are surprising enough to write a pop-science book about. These are less likely to be true -- that's why they're surprising.

3. Oversimplify for popular consumption, sound very confident, and omit things that don't fit the story. (This makes for a much better read, as epistemically sinful as it may be.)

Each step makes good commercial sense, and I can't hate him for it, but the resulting books are unlikely to be Actually True.

Re: Malcolm Gladwell's famous 10k hour rule isn't holding up in new research

#23

Post by knolax »

inimino wrote: post #6
delish wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the debates I'm surprised to have with my friends is: some of them will parrot Gladwell-style advice (truisms that claim to come from science). I will say, "That didn't replicate." They'll say, "Well it's a good idea anyway." And then I'll say some long thing about how when you're giving someone advice, you should hold yourself to a higher standard, not a lower one . Especially if you're an institution.

If you're competing in an area where other competitors spend 10k hours before they compete, you better practice. We didn't really need a study to tell us that, but people feel it adds something to say that science has "proved it". That's why if you point out the study was BS, it doesn't matter, because it was just a supporting detail for the point they wanted to make anyway. Practice.

If you're competing in area where other competitors spend 10k hours practicing then maybe you should make sure that those 10k hours are actually giving them an advantage. If not you now have a 10k hour time advantage over them.

Re: Malcolm Gladwell's famous 10k hour rule isn't holding up in new research

#24

Post by kodebrew »

pjscott wrote: post #22
Jerry2 wrote: post #14

Gladwell's most famous book, 'The Tipping Point', suffered a similar fate. It was largely predicated on the 'broken window theory' [1] which too was proven not to be valid [2]. After his book 'David and Goliath' received numerous bad reviews for oversimplifying things and pinning causes on things that don't make sense, Gladwell lashed out at his critics and basically said that his books are not written for experts. […

All of this is unsurprising, given Gladwell's process: 1. Take research findings in psychology, sociology, etc., all fields which are having big replication problems. 2. Pick out findings that are surprising enough to write a pop-science book about. These are less likely to be true -- that's why they're surprising. 3. Oversimplify for popular consumption, sound very confident, and omit things that don't fit the story…

I definitely agree with this. I have to say though, I really enjoyed Blink and the storytelling around that. I visited the statue from the first chapter in the story and marvelled at how researchers "just believed" it was fake.

Sometimes pop-psychology, if it gets us more interested in subjects, may not be that harmful.

Re: Malcolm Gladwell's famous 10k hour rule isn't holding up in new research

#25

Post by cma »

pjscott wrote: post #22
Jerry2 wrote: post #14

Gladwell's most famous book, 'The Tipping Point', suffered a similar fate. It was largely predicated on the 'broken window theory' [1] which too was proven not to be valid [2]. After his book 'David and Goliath' received numerous bad reviews for oversimplifying things and pinning causes on things that don't make sense, Gladwell lashed out at his critics and basically said that his books are not written for experts. […

All of this is unsurprising, given Gladwell's process: 1. Take research findings in psychology, sociology, etc., all fields which are having big replication problems. 2. Pick out findings that are surprising enough to write a pop-science book about. These are less likely to be true -- that's why they're surprising. 3. Oversimplify for popular consumption, sound very confident, and omit things that don't fit the story…

I think I read somewhere that he took speaking fees from tobacco and amphetamine companies and wrote positively about them.

Re: Malcolm Gladwell's famous 10k hour rule isn't holding up in new research

#26

Post by zamfi »

mdorazio wrote: post #8

Serious question: which of Gladwell's various truisms and rules have actually held up to research? I've seen a lot of criticism of his pop science books over the years without much talk about what he actually gets right.

Perhaps the silence is telling.

Re: Malcolm Gladwell's famous 10k hour rule isn't holding up in new research

#27

Post by pjscott »

cma wrote: post #25
pjscott wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of this is unsurprising, given Gladwell's process: 1. Take research findings in psychology, sociology, etc., all fields which are having big replication problems. 2. Pick out findings that are surprising enough to write a pop-science book about. These are less likely to be true -- that's why they're surprising. 3. Oversimplify for popular consumption, sound very confident, and omit things that don't fit the story…

I think I read somewhere that he took speaking fees from tobacco and amphetamine companies and wrote positively about them.

I looked it up, and it may be so -- but every public figure has scandalous accusations, and these don't seem very strong. Is there something unusual in this case?

Re: Malcolm Gladwell's famous 10k hour rule isn't holding up in new research

#28

Post by proverbialbunny »

mdorazio wrote: post #8

Serious question: which of Gladwell's various truisms and rules have actually held up to research? I've seen a lot of criticism of his pop science books over the years without much talk about what he actually gets right.

Well, to play devil's advocate here, this article's reason the 10,000 Rule is not true is because it doesn't make experts.

However, he never said the 10,000 rule would create experts. He said it would create proficiency.

It's become a major theme in society (especially online at places like Reddit) where someone misunderstands a statement, and then promptly attacks or disproves it, instead of asking the person for clarification first.

If there is one thing I've learned over the years is people tend to be well intended, and by asking for clarification, one has more of an opportunity to learn than shutting it down immediately. At worse you've learned where they're coming from, which imho is more valuable than the initial statement itself.

Re: Malcolm Gladwell's famous 10k hour rule isn't holding up in new research

#30

Post by ChuckMcM »

One of my favorite outcomes from this was Dan Mclaughlin's attempt at becoming a pro-golfer[1] which he called "The Dan Plan".

What I found really interesting was that how you practice is so important and how we often get it wrong. When I think about things I've picked up mastery in over the years and things which eluded me, I see a lot of similarities. Mastery for me comes from varying the activities, not from rote repetition and "muscle memory."

[1] https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:NH2YUq...

Post reply on HN