News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Malcolm Gladwell got us wrong: here’s what got oversimpli... by krat0sprakhar on Saturday July 16, 2016 @01:09PM (#12107034)
I think this is the crux of this article:

This puts the ten-thousand-hour rule in a completely different light: The reason that you must put in ten thousand or more hours of practice to become one of the world’s best violinists or chess players or golfers is that the people you are being compared to or competing with have themselves put in ten thousand or more hours of practice. There is no point at which performance maxes out and additional practice does not lead to further improvement. So, yes, if you wish to become one of the best in the world in one of these highly competitive fields, you will need to put in thousands and thousands of hours of hard, focused work just to have a chance of equaling all of those others who have chosen to put in the same sort of work.

Re:Malcolm Gladwell got us wrong: here’s what got oversimpli... by paulpauper on Saturday July 16, 2016 @03:33PM (#12107578)
It didn't read that way in Outliers, where he implied there was a linear relationship between practice and ability, without preconditions. When confronted, he had to offer a clarification clause that the rule only applied to those who already did 10,000 hours, but that thousands of more hours are needed. Suuure whatever you say, Gadwell.
Re:Malcolm Gladwell got us wrong: here’s what got oversimpli... by andrewrice on Saturday July 16, 2016 @08:28PM (#12108431)
So, is there not a linear relationship between practice and ability? Or at least a positive correlation?
Re:Malcolm Gladwell got us wrong: here’s what got oversimpli... by AndHeiberg on Saturday July 16, 2016 @01:44PM (#12107173)
Thanks for the summary!