The article is about the degree to which deliberate practice helps you in various fields, it's not actually about the specific 10,000 hour rule. The thesis of the article is that, essentially, deliberate practice does not have a large effect on your effectiveness in fields which do not have unchanging, rigid structures (like games whose rules don't change).
As a rule, I reserve judgement about any "new study", but also as a rule I think that anything Malcolm Gladwell says is bullshit, so I'm torn on this one.
I had the same torn reaction, but upon reading the full text (thanks, Gwern!) I'm no longer conflicted: it's not really a new study, so much as it is a systematic review of roughly a decade of relevant literature. Malcolm Gladwell seems to have based his claims mainly on a widely-cited Hot New Study from 1993, which has since turned out to have been overblown: later studies on the importance of deliberate practice have almost all come up with lower values for the correlation between deliberate practice hours and performance.
So, it looks like ignoring Malcolm Gladwell was the right answer here. It usually is.
> later studies on the importance of deliberate practice have almost all come up with lower values for the correlation between deliberate practice hours and performance.
What's also really interesting is the differences in the kind of data used to measure deliberate practice: daily logs, which you'd think be the most accurate, showed the least correlation with performance, while retrospective interviews showed the most. Biases in recollection or researcher allegiance?
Gladwell's paper was so explicit that I thought it couldn't possibly be true, despite the niceties of "We'd like practice to be important"
The best programmers (and martial artists, and runners, and basketball players) I personally know are the ones who practiced the most, but I've struggled with causation and correlation. They generally got early head starts, and kept plowing ahead.
That's possible, but it should also be easy to test, shouldn't it? Just measure how much people improve over time based on practice. Or how "naturals" compare to people who weren't very good at first, but kept practicing.
Competitive multiplayer video games would have this kind of data. Or even all types of video games.
The direction of causation is key. I think people with natural propensity (what you might call "talent") are more likely to practice hard than those who struggle to see results from their practice.
I am wary of anyone who makes blanket statements like "anything Malcolm Gladwell says is bullshit."
You simulataneously discount his entire canon of work and also every single underlying scientific paper he has quoted, cited or referenced. That is a lot of work to label bullshit.
Obviously not everything that Malcolm Gladwell says is bullshit, that was hyperoble. If he said the sky was blue I wouldn't disbelieve him, but I would check my watch to see if it's sunrise or sunset. It's also ridiculous to jump from "anything Malcolm Gladwell says is bullshit" to discounting everything he quotes, cites or references. He draws conclusions and makes cases from these things, in a way that is, frankly, not justified.
Also, what are you wary about? You can check every statement I've made on this subject by reading the article. It's not long. You don't have to bother deciding whether or not to be suspicious of me.
Why is it ridiculous to take your statements as you say them? I am at a loss. Your hyperbole continues with "He draws conclusions and makes cases from these things, in a way that is, frankly, not justified."
So nothing that Gladwell writes has justification? Seems like you have a deep hatred of his writing and are unable to critique his ideas objectively.
I read the article; I have read the 10 years/10,000 hours peice and it's detractors numerous times. I don't use that one argument to tear down a man's work though. People fixate on one part of one chapter.
His study of the Gore-Tex working practices and racism in the Caribbean I thought were particularly excellent.
You didn't take his statements as he said them. He said, "as a rule, I think", but you dropped that part, increasing the drama and giving you something to yell at. The guy was clearly indicating a general skepticism of Gladwell, not saying that every single sentence he had ever written was false.
Protip: If somebody apparently smart says something that you interpret as being completely idiotic, take some time to see if you can find another interpretation.
I'd go further recommend you do that for anyone, not just people you know are smart. You never know what random useful thing someone else knows that you don't. But do prioritize it for the ones you know are smart.
Why does the precursor "as a rule..." change anything?
I have not increased the drama at all. Someone posted a totally hyperbolic statement. I called them on it. It was upvoted numerous times I suspect because a consensus agrees with me.
It is not intelligent to tear down popular things because they are popular. You could have very well removed Gladwell and added Apple, Microsoft or French wine.
I haven't yelled, have I?
Your protip is baffling. Who is apparently smart? The OP? How have you reached that conclusion? By the possession of a HN account?
My heuristic is that non-anonymous persons get more conversational leeway. I'm more willing to invest time in conversations with people who have invested in their identity.
Your current level of argumentative dickishness would probably disqualify you as a useful interlocutor for me regardless of how much you stand behind your words. E.g., the "you never asked me my name" bullshit. So I'm done with you.
How about "everything I've ever heard or read Malcolm Gladwell to say is bullshit"? He usually isn't actually saying anything, so the fact that so many words are involved automatically qualifies... As one might imagine given our opinions of the man, many of us haven't subjected ourselves to all of his latest communications, so if we're missing some specific non-bullshit please let us know!
As a rule, I reserve judgement about any "new study", but also as a rule I think that anything Malcolm Gladwell says is bullshit, so I'm torn on this one.