This study only interviewed 13 violinists. That's not a large number to invalidate.
And Gladwell interviewed how many?
Malcolm Gladwell's famous 10k hour rule isn't holding up in new research
41–50 of 71 posts
Re: Malcolm Gladwell's famous 10k hour rule isn't holding up in new research
#42So I shouldn't bother with anything. Good to know. Thanks for that info. If practice doesn't mean anything what even is the point of anything?
It’s the reverse. You should bother with “everything” because you could have a secret talent.
Re: Malcolm Gladwell's famous 10k hour rule isn't holding up in new research
#43Gladwell'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. […
was proven not to be valid
Re: Malcolm Gladwell's famous 10k hour rule isn't holding up in new research
#44The 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.
That's actually not the point, according to the man himself in his interview on freakonomics. He said that the point was more about the support needed to become an expert.
Separately, the research he based this on is about deliberate practice. If you're not going to practice deliberately, you might in fact be better off not practicing at all.
"""MALCOLM GLADWELL: The 10,000-hour stuff that I put in Outliers was really only intended to perform a very specific narrative function — or not narrative function, but argumentative function. To me the point of 10,000 hours is: if it takes that long to be good, you can’t do it by yourself. If you have to play chess for 10 years in order to be a great chess player, then that means that you can’t have a job, or maybe if you have a job it can’t be a job that takes most of your time..."""
Re: Malcolm Gladwell's famous 10k hour rule isn't holding up in new research
#45He is a hack. Full stop.
He is nearly a fraud.
Re: Malcolm Gladwell's famous 10k hour rule isn't holding up in new research
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Looks like someone found a link above, I think that is what I read in the past.
Re: Malcolm Gladwell's famous 10k hour rule isn't holding up in new research
#47Earlier 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…
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.
From what I heard of the account of that, he wasn't wrong. I mean Korean airlines specifically changed their policy after that crash to make it easier for co-pilots to correct their pilots. I stand corrected if this isn't the case.
Re: Malcolm Gladwell's famous 10k hour rule isn't holding up in new research
#48Serious 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 cl…
Proficiency? What? He says
"Researchers have settled on what they believe is the magic number for true expertise: 10,000 hours"
True expertise is not mere proficiency.
Re: Malcolm Gladwell's famous 10k hour rule isn't holding up in new research
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 cl…
Proficiency? What? He says "Researchers have settled on what they believe is the magic number for true expertise: 10,000 hours" True expertise is not mere proficiency.
There are also statements of him saying he never said it makes an expert. Maybe he's lying?
Re: Malcolm Gladwell's famous 10k hour rule isn't holding up in new research
#50> The adage was given a scientific basis when journalist and author Malcolm Gladwell wrote about the 10,000-hour rule in his 2008 bestseller, "Outliers."
Malcolm Gladwell declaring something based on cherry-picked anecdotes does not give anything a "scientific basis".
While Gladwell (very) often drives me crazy (he's a walking, talking Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect machine), I find Outliers to be his best book. You just have to reframe it mentally as "mastery generally involves a whole lot of practice, here are some stories illustrating that". Even when I vehemently disagree with his conclusions, he really is an excellent storyteller.