Gladwell had a chapter in his book Outliers called "Rice Paddies and Math Tests" where he claims that "Asians are good at math" because rice is hard to grow. The man is obviously an intellectual sham.
[deleted]
Malcolm Gladwell's famous 10k hour rule isn't holding up in new research
31–40 of 71 posts
Re: Malcolm Gladwell's famous 10k hour rule isn't holding up in new research
#32I'm skeptical if some mastery of skills need an order of events in life that's fundamentally important. I assume youth is another important factor in the equation. The 10k hour rule is too hopeful for everything but I can see it working for many skills.
Re: Malcolm Gladwell's famous 10k hour rule isn't holding up in new research
#33People trained in the "hard sciences" seem to place a lot more rigour on numbers than the social sciences can really accommodate. Much of the scientific method can't really be applied to humans in a longitudinal study so there's going to be some leeway and larger scope for variation than when performing tests on inanimate objects or lab rats for example.
We all know this at some level. Nobody expects to be a mediocre violinist at the 59th minute of the 9,999th hour and to be a master one minute later. To me the book read like an extended musing on folk wisdom such as "practice makes perfect" and that famous Coolidge quote about persistence. Obviously talent, genius and education are factors, but persistence and determination are huge.
Re: Malcolm Gladwell's famous 10k hour rule isn't holding up in new research
#34Couple of points here: 1) HN is supposed to link to the original report about the research, which is done by the Guardian (linked in the first sentence!) here [1] 2) "Anders Ericsson [original study author] said the new paper actually replicated most of their findings." 3) Gladwell pushed the 10k rule to the point of breaking, by that I mean he extrapolated way beyond the original research. Gladwell's point may not h…
Point (1) might be because we already had the Guardian article on HN last month, discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20753311
Re: Malcolm Gladwell's famous 10k hour rule isn't holding up in new research
#35Earlier 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.
That’s a pretty serious accusation to make with zero attribution or sourcing.
Re: Malcolm Gladwell's famous 10k hour rule isn't holding up in new research
#36Earlier 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.
Yep. Read about it here: http://shameproject.com/profile/malcolm-gladwell-2/
Re: Malcolm Gladwell's famous 10k hour rule isn't holding up in new research
#37The point Gladwell was trying to make is that the more you practice, the better you will get. The degree how the practice affects each individual will differ and there are no guarantees, but you will better off practicing than not.
Re: Malcolm Gladwell's famous 10k hour rule isn't holding up in new research
#38This study only interviewed 13 violinists. That's not a large number to invalidate.
Re: Malcolm Gladwell's famous 10k hour rule isn't holding up in new research
#39Here's the paper itself, freely available for once, if anyone else wants to take a deeper dive:
Re: Malcolm Gladwell's famous 10k hour rule isn't holding up in new research
#40Gladwell'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…
Yup, Gladwell also wrote how “Korean culture” was the reason for the Asiana 214 plane crash.
What I find interesting is that people who discount most of Gladwell’s theories, will oftentimes agree with others, as long as it confirms their own biases.