When pop history bombs: a response to Malcolm Gladwell

Re:When pop history bombs: a response to Malcolm Gladwell by chiefalchemist on Wednesday June 16, 2021 @05:47PM (#27533837)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:When pop history bombs: a response to Malcolm Gladwell by temp8964 on Wednesday June 16, 2021 @06:49PM (#27534376)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:When pop history bombs: a response to Malcolm Gladwell by solveit on Wednesday June 16, 2021 @10:12PM (#27535552)

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?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:When pop history bombs: a response to Malcolm Gladwell by temp8964 on Wednesday June 16, 2021 @10:32PM (#27535643)

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

[ Parent | on HN ]