The 10k hours claim (popularized by Gladwell) is also an absurd overreach on what the research actually was or claimed to be. Read Peak by K Anders Ericsson instead of Gladwell’s outliers and you get a very different presentation of what the research says from one of the researchers.
They were studying a very specific type of rote learning with a specific type of training (because being classically trained in violin is that standardized). The number of hours trained to reach expert status was not identical between practitioners. He made absolutely zero claims about the amount of time needed to learn different skills that fit the same pattern, and more importantly, really didn’t make such claims about entirely different and unrelated types of learning like code that aren’t formalized.
Gladwell’s book was straight anecdote with no rigor.
Malcolm Gladwell does this thing where he starts with a kernel of truth and gets way too excited about it and goes way beyond what’s actually there. I don’t think it’s malicious, and I don’t hate him as a writer, but he’s much better at making things engaging than making them correct. If you read him like those business books where leaders break down their core philosophies and you see what ideas you can take for yourself, they’re not bad. He finds some interesting ideas to bring to light. But if you take them as an academic source, you’re going to get in trouble.
The core concept that learning takes a substantial amount of work is solid. The premise that you can just do something for X hours (ignoring the number he chose because it’s flashy) and be an expert isn’t. The methodology used for violin training involves a very structured, mindful approach to practice where you’re constantly making corrections and constantly working right past the limit of your ability in order to continually develop.
I absolutely do recommend Peak, and also Range by David Epstein, for contrasting views on different ways we learn and solve problems. They’re not the simplistic pop-sci Gladwell does, but they’re still pretty accessible and don’t assume a lot of prior knowledge, and they both take more care to be based in evidence (though the nature of range means there’s still anecdotes).
The 10k hours claim (popularized by Gladwell) is also an absurd overreach on what the research actually was or claimed to be. Read Peak by K Anders Ericsson instead of Gladwell’s outliers and you get a very different presentation of what the research says from one of the researchers.
They were studying a very specific type of rote learning with a specific type of training (because being classically trained in violin is that standardized). The number of hours trained to reach expert status was not identical between practitioners. He made absolutely zero claims about the amount of time needed to learn different skills that fit the same pattern, and more importantly, really didn’t make such claims about entirely different and unrelated types of learning like code that aren’t formalized.
Gladwell’s book was straight anecdote with no rigor.
Thanks for pointing this out. I didn’t question the 10k hours at all.
Malcolm Gladwell does this thing where he starts with a kernel of truth and gets way too excited about it and goes way beyond what’s actually there. I don’t think it’s malicious, and I don’t hate him as a writer, but he’s much better at making things engaging than making them correct. If you read him like those business books where leaders break down their core philosophies and you see what ideas you can take for yourself, they’re not bad. He finds some interesting ideas to bring to light. But if you take them as an academic source, you’re going to get in trouble.
The core concept that learning takes a substantial amount of work is solid. The premise that you can just do something for X hours (ignoring the number he chose because it’s flashy) and be an expert isn’t. The methodology used for violin training involves a very structured, mindful approach to practice where you’re constantly making corrections and constantly working right past the limit of your ability in order to continually develop.
I absolutely do recommend Peak, and also Range by David Epstein, for contrasting views on different ways we learn and solve problems. They’re not the simplistic pop-sci Gladwell does, but they’re still pretty accessible and don’t assume a lot of prior knowledge, and they both take more care to be based in evidence (though the nature of range means there’s still anecdotes).