I think the whole ten-thousand-hours is doing exactly that, it presents some cherry-picked facts and ignores giving substantial evidence. The main point of the book is quite obvious before Gladwell wrapped it into pop science: hard work does pay off one way or another but the extent of his generalization is ... pop science

There was a good freakonomics podcast episode on this where they interviewed both Gladwell and the original author. The person who did the original study basically said Gladwell was not representing his research accurately.

If you read the author the original work, Gladwell got 80% right, 20% deviation on non-essential issues. Of course a pop science book can be said not representing the original research "accurately". I think the author focused more on the difference because there is Gladwell's book received too many backlashes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practice_(learning_method)#Del...

I don't know, seems like they have pretty different views based on the article you linked.

""He's [Ericsson] a hard practice guy, and I'm a soft practice guy." Gladwell claims that talent is important with an intentional dedication to practice and having a support system is vital to produce superior outcomes. It is not all about methodical effort as Ericsson claims."

That's not "pretty different views". That's agree on all the basics but having a different sense of how much talent matters.

How about this? (The sentence you left out directly before that quote)

"Malcolm Gladwell's point-of-view about deliberate practice is different from Ericsson's view."

"Hard Practice" vs "Soft Practice" is the center of the argument, it is the point of contention. No one is going to argue that practice isn't important, they are going to argue how you should practice and how much it matters compared to other factors. They disagree on both of these points, so no, they don't agree.

> "Hard Practice" vs "Soft Practice" is the center of the argument, it is the point of contention.

If you focus on the difference, yes, it is the major difference between them. But if you focus on the main point (the overwhelming importance of 10 year of deliberate practice for one to become a top expert in a field), it is non-essential. There is no concrete empirical answer to how much exactly talent matters, even now.

Where I see people get 10k hours wrong is they think it *guarantees* top shelf world class success. That's a misinterpretation. The 10k rule is: *If* you make it to the top, you will almost certainly have put in at least 10k hours.

I'm not a Gladwell fan so I'm not certain about what he said. I'm only wanting to point out the difference between the rule and how very many misinterpret it.

Two common misinterpretations:

- 10k hours guarantees top success

- 10k hours practice is required for top success

The 10k hours rule does not say either. The 10k hours rule only says 10k hours deliberate practice is generally required to be a top expert in most fields. So there are cases where 10k hours practice is not sufficient, and there are cases where talent people (Mozart?) need way fewer practice than regular people.

The 10k hours rule also does not say top experts need more hours to be better. So there is "debunk" claiming no correlation found among top expert performance and practice which is kind of strawman attack.

Mozart is literally in Gladwell's book as an example of someone who got their 10k hours in early. Why do you feel the need to comment while clearly never having read the book you're defending?

I have a different view on the Mozart's case, but not sure about it. Hence the question mark.

Correctness of what? That a single variable explains success? Its completely ludicrous

"single variable explains success"? It is not what it about.

Its exactly that when you keep saying 10 000 hours is a magic number.

Wow. Do you think it is exactly 10 000 hours? It is exactly 10 000 hours for everyone? I don't understand this kind of nonsensical interpretation.

I would argue that 10,000 hours is represented as an inflection point in his book, more as a, "This number, with one significant digit, kept showing up when Gladwell would interview people who were great at specific things" instead of a, "do this amount of a specific thing and you'll then be great at that specific thing" or "magic" number in that sense.

It's hardly a steadfast rule and he never presents it as such, but it's easy to squint real hard and see it that way, if you just want to argue or be upset.

It's not a magic number so much as an attempt to redefine expertise. While shilling a self-help book. A lie at the kernel of a con.