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

11–20 of 71 posts

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

#11

Post by itcrowd »

1123581321 wrote: post #2

The title is incorrect as it is Anders Ericsson‘s research, Ericsson did not find that time necessarily led to mastery (that is a popular misunderstanding) the study quantified practice, not deliberate practice, and despite all that did find a correlation between unqualified practice time and mastery, among other factors.

Sorry, but you're wrong about the deliberate practice part. The study's name even reveals it and a cursory reading of the text will clarify it: "The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance" [emphasis mine].

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

#12

Post by schaefer »

Ericsson has gone so far as to dedicate an entire six-page section in his 2017 book [Peak] to a discussion of [Outliers]'s popularization of the catch phrase "the ten thousand hour rule". In the section he lists three reasons why this phrase is misleading, and one way in which it is accurate.

The central theme of [Peak] is to review what things all experts have in common, irrespective of their varied fields: these being a habit of deliberate, purposeful practice and mental maps.

[Peak] Peak: Secrets from the new science of Expertise by Anders Ericsson and Robert Pool

[Outliers] Outliers by Malcom Gladwell

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

#13

Post by delish »

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.

Not quite to disagree with your main point:

> because it was just a supporting detail for the point they wanted to make anyway.

The people who make arguments whose evidence is just a supporting detail for the point they wanted to make anyway are common--some are some of my friends, family and coworkers, but I take what they say a lot less seriously than I do people who have high standards for evidence.

>We didn't really need a study to tell us that

Perhaps not, but we can ask for studies on what kind of practice, how much and how old you are when you practice et cetera. Yes you "have to practice." But you can be interested in how to practice well, and one way to know that is good studies (i.e. not dubious ones).

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

#14

Post by Jerry2 »

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. [3]

Almost all of Gladwell's books are written in a style that categorically states that the subjects of his writing have a predetermined cause and effect. He doesn't leave much to chance, uncertainty or some other unknown cause. Everything is certain. His stories and narrations always imply a cause. That's the real secret of his writing.

[1] https://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2016/11/14/the-tipping-po...

[2] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/sorry-malcolm-glad...

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/sep/29/malcolm-gladwe...

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

#15

Post by 1123581321 »

itcrowd wrote: post #11
1123581321 wrote: post #2

The title is incorrect as it is Anders Ericsson‘s research, Ericsson did not find that time necessarily led to mastery (that is a popular misunderstanding) the study quantified practice, not deliberate practice, and despite all that did find a correlation between unqualified practice time and mastery, among other factors.

Sorry, but you're wrong about the deliberate practice part. The study's name even reveals it and a cursory reading of the text will clarify it: "The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance" [emphasis mine].

No need to apologize. I was referring to the new study, not Ericsson’s, and mangled my comment. It should read: “The title is incorrect as it is Anders Ericsson‘s research, Ericsson did not find that time spent necessarily led to mastery (that is a popular misunderstanding). The new study quantified practice, not deliberate practice, and despite all that did find a correlation between unqualified practice time and mastery, among other factors.”

Thanks for catching it.

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

#16

Post by chillacy »

Wait this study is from 1993?

Anyways it seems obvious that the relationship between hours in and performance starts to get skewed at top percentages of human performance. Doing well in the NBA requires a lucky draw of genetic height / strength as well as practice. But a lot of deliberate practice will probably make you better than your neighbors at pickup games.

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

#18

Post by wglb »

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. […

To me Tipping Point is a kindergarten-level version of Chaos Theory. It was so bad I could not finish it.

He is a fair story teller but is closer to opinion than non-fiction.

He says if his books are too simplistic for you, don't read them. I am also likely to tell friends and family to not read them.

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

#19

Post by mrburton »

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.

Post reply on HN