News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:When pop history bombs: a response to Malcolm Gladwell by onemoresoop on Wednesday June 16, 2021 @05:15PM (#27533564)
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
Re:When pop history bombs: a response to Malcolm Gladwell by enkid on Wednesday June 16, 2021 @07:32PM (#27534690)
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.
Re:When pop history bombs: a response to Malcolm Gladwell by temp8964 on Wednesday June 16, 2021 @08:16PM (#27534939)
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...

Re:When pop history bombs: a response to Malcolm Gladwell by enkid on Wednesday June 16, 2021 @10:21PM (#27535599)
I don't know, seems like they have pretty different views based on the article you linked.
Re:When pop history bombs: a response to Malcolm Gladwell by temp8964 on Wednesday June 16, 2021 @10:35PM (#27535654)
""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.

Re:When pop history bombs: a response to Malcolm Gladwell by enkid on Thursday June 17, 2021 @12:52AM (#27536235)
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.

Re:When pop history bombs: a response to Malcolm Gladwell by temp8964 on Thursday June 17, 2021 @08:28AM (#27538851)
> "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.