111–120 of 173 posts
[deleted]
If you read the book "Talent is Overrated", the theory being put forth alongside "10,000 hours to master something" is there is no such thing as natural talent. Every baby has the same talents at birth. Tiger Woods was not born great. His father had him swinging a golf club from before he could walk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly - look at TV shows like MTV's 'Made' and similar, where people 'focus' (in the case of 'Made', not even very hard) and get to a respectable level, just by having a coach and putting in some time. There are other TV shows where people actually take 10 weeks or so to do something full time - things that the 'pros' say of that it's so hard to learn (like dancing, or hairdressing, or whatever). They usually compe…
That made me think of a show that was on the golf channel where they tried to make Charles Barkley into a respectable golfer. Despite a highly competent coach and many hours of practice, it ended badly IIRC.
http://www.golf.com/golf/tours_news/article/0,28136,2056371,...
This in particular was useful to read:
"That was the weird thing about Barkley. You did fix him. On the range and on the simulator, he had 300-yard drives. He couldn't take it to the course. He had the mental full-swing yips, and you had him killing it.
Yeah, the change was that before he couldn't do it on the range. Now he can do it on the range, but still can't do it on the course. So he's playing left-handed now. He's actually pretty good.
It's bizarre that a professional athlete wouldn't be physically able to do it.
He is physically able to, he isn't mentally able to. It's bizarre when somebody shoots less than 50 percent from the foul line, it's bizarre when Chuck Knobloch can't throw it to first base, it's bizarre when Rick Ankiel throws 18 pitches in a row to the backstop. But it happens."
I had to look up Rick Ankiel. Interesting story of what sounds like a complete mental breakdown of a skill. Tiger Woods seems to be going through a minor form of this now.
It's far more reasonable to change this to a challenge to become a scratch golfer or something similar. I don't think Gladwell meant that anyone could become one of the best in the world at anything with 10,000 hours of work. Such a statement is somewhat insulting to those that have devoted their life to their craft. Instead, that with 10,000 hours you could become very good at anything. Enough so that you could be c…
The "challenge" isn't to become a PGA golfer or anything like that. There isn't any predetermined mark of how "good" he needs to become in order to succeed. It's an open-ended experiment into how far 10,000 hours can take you. Setting one milestone as your "goal" hinders your ability to reach the thousands of other possible milestones.
The next argument I hear from a lot of my golfing buddies is that they'll practice hard and play the Senior Tour (Champions Tour). Beating Bubba Watson, for example, in 20 years when he's eligible for the Champions tour is like beating Usain Bolt in a 100 yard dash after giving him a 3 second head start. Won't make good television.
A few books have been written on the subject where reporters try to qualify for the tour.
That being said, it's actually doable, highly unlikely, but doable. I like his chances at becoming a pro golfer (not on the PGA Tour, but maybe the Hooters or Tar Heel Tour) better than his chances of becoming a starting pitcher, running back, point guard, goalie or professional driver in other pro sports. Golf, the game is tremendously "fair".
To me there's a sort of a Bayesian logic working against any hypothetical "adult novice puts in 10,000 hours of work and becomes a pro" story, which is that anyone who has the willpower and passion to put in that much work probably has already. If you are so excited about a sport/instrument/game/hobby that you're willing to put 10,000 hours into it starting from scratch, why weren't you working on it before? I recent…
I haven't read "Outliers" yet, but from what I've gathered about it I think the biggest thing Gladwell fails to mention is the single-minded drive and zealous mission that's inherent in true outliers. Read the biography of any extraordinary performer (Buffett, Steve Jobs, Rockefeller, Ted Williams, Michael Jackson...) and you get the sense that they were willing to die for it. They didn't do it to test theories or even test their potential. Their craft defined their entire existence. It was their all and everything, it was their life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Certainly he's very good, but there's still a huge gulf between him and the best marathon runners. And that's why this ten thousand hours thing is pretty random, yet pretty unfalsifiable. In any specialised activity, the first hundred hours of dedicated practice is good enough to make you better than most people. Keep practicing and you'll be better than 80% of the world. Keep it up for a bunch more time and you'll b…
but whether you're in the top 5% or the top 0.001% depends on which activity you've chosen (plus your natural talent in that field). I would be fine with that result. My objection is when people say "I'm just not good at X ," when what they really mean is "I'm not as good at X as I think I should be, that frustrates me, and I lack the motivation to continue trying." If we can demonstrate that with enough practice, an…
I'd agree with that, which is a very different claim than "there's no such thing as innate talent".
I've talked to other CS majors who think that most people just don't have the right "mind" for programming
I'd also agree with that, and I don't think it's contradictory. Have you really not observed that some people pick up programming far easier than others? I believe that almost anyone can get to the point where they can write basic software, but not that everyone is capable of becoming the next Dennis Ritchie.
I have been playing golf since I was 6 years old (I am now 25, running a YC company and whiteyboard). I've played competitively, going all over the country and even got a full scholarship to a NCAA Division 1 university for the sport. I can honestly say that this guy does not stand a chance, and here is why. 1. Golf, especially when it comes to playing professionally, is more of a mental sport than physical (both str…
You're saying:
Golf is mostly mental. That certainly isn't a problem: you can train mentality. In fact what you've just argued is that golf is well-suited to be conquered purely through training (among sports). Dan would have a much harder time becoming effective in basketball, where normal-size people are at a huge disadvantage off the bat.
Golf requires feel. Where do you think feel comes from? (Training!) Again, you've actually argued that golf is well-suited to Dan's approach, not the opposite.
You've seen this before. No you haven't. Come on.
Golf is hard. That's tautological. Anything that can reasonably be called an endeavor is in some sense infinitely hard. (Also: how do you know that shaving off those last few strokes is impossible once you've achieved your potential? Did you dedicate your life to golf?)
Sometimes you'll have a day of training that won't contribute to your progress. Anybody trying to learn anything will experience days like that.
This is a cool and ballsy experiment and you're being a bit of a hater. Do I think Dan will become a PGA golfer? No, but I'm looking forward to seeing him try.
I have been playing golf since I was 6 years old (I am now 25, running a YC company and whiteyboard). I've played competitively, going all over the country and even got a full scholarship to a NCAA Division 1 university for the sport. I can honestly say that this guy does not stand a chance, and here is why. 1. Golf, especially when it comes to playing professionally, is more of a mental sport than physical (both str…
Re: 1) I think the idea is that 10000 hours of practice include all aspects of the game. There is no reason why his plan can't include playing his way up through all grades of tournaments and working on his mental game.
2) That sounds exactly like the kind of experience turned into intuition that the human brain is good at. I don't think there is any reason to think that aspect is inbuilt (though of course it might be).
3) But 10000 hours? Thats 6 days a week for 6 years.
4) I think this guy would be very happy being a mediocre pro.
5) Yeah I'm not sure I get that point at all. You don't have to get a good score to practice attentively.