I love hate it when people jump to the most foolish conclusions by prejudging a headline and failing to read the rest of the story. Happens all the time on Reddit and Digg. Malcolm Gladwell is a master at popularizing social science, and it's simultaneously disheartening and revealing to watch his critics try to counter him on points he never even made. How dumb.
There's a part in all of us, a primal portion of our brain which is wired to react in a startled, irrational way. It isn't just sudden external stimuli that exposes this, but apparently, if our brains can make sense of squiggly shapes into words, especially words that form statements we vehemently disagree or even violently oppose, then we can act like utter morons in response.
Tragicomedy results from Gladwell's "10,000 rule":
This idea – that excellence at a complex task requires a critical, minimum level of practice – surfaces again and again in studies of expertise. In fact, researchers have settled on what they believe is a magic number for true expertise: 10,000 hours.
This fundamentally means: 10,000 hours is the minimum period of quality time needed to be an expert in a given field. It's an incredibly tough thing to summarize because of all the interdependencies and edge cases (including subjectivity on "What's an expert?"), and Gladwell himself repeatedly states it's not an absolute rule without inflexibility. Referring to computer magnates, he opines:
I don't mean to suggest, of course, that every software tycoon in Silicon Valley was born in 1955. But there are very clearly patterns here, and what's striking is how little we seem to want to talk about them.
My point here isn't to challenge the validity of the rule. I understand the word "rule" makes most people think it always applies. (Remember, Gladwell says this is not so.) It's to point out the many incorrect interpretations of such a statement. Even Seth Godin gets it wrong, where he incorrectly exchanges "expert" for "superstar".
No.
Having the skills, the expertise for success certainly gives you an aggregated advantage. A higher probability. But it doesn't invariably mean you will be successful. One of the best examples of this are all the talented classical musicians who've practiced lifelong, play for peanuts, and shake their fists at popstars who've taken the easy way. Popstars who are successful (if we define that to be commercial viability and fanbase size), but not experts.
If you put in 10,000 hours of effective time, you'll inseparably have vastly more experience and knowledge than someone who hasn't lived that. During that time, you'll likely have had successes, even found shortcuts. Obviously, if you can grasp concepts with ease, you can apply them faster too, hence the modern emphasis on "quick learner". It's not incompatible.
But I reckon Gladwell, not unlike meth addicts who look like him (see top-right), knows this controversy will give him peripheral attention. A practice of what he preaches. Maybe it'll even sell more books. And to make sure you take this the right way, I'm in the midst of listening to the audiobook version of Outliers (as purchased from the iTunes Store), and I think it's fantastic so far.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
Thanks, but I think we agree, not disagree. You yourself wrote:
If you put in 10,000 hours of effective time, you'll inseparably have vastly more experience and knowledge than someone who hasn't lived that.
That's exactly my point. 10,000 hours is vastly more than the competition MOST of the time, but not if you want to be a senior partner at a NY law firm. The Dip moves, it's not static.
I read 'Outliers' right after it came out & I loved it, although I think I did like 'The Tipping Point' and 'Blink' better, so if you haven't read either of those two, I highly recommend them. Gladwell's writing is fascinating and easily digestible; I'd happily read pretty much anything he writes without having to flip through the book first to decide if I'd like it.
I'd love to hear what you think of 'Outliers' once you've finished! I don't know anybody else who's read it, so it would be cool to exchange thoughts about it.
@Seth: Thanx for clarifying! I should also specify that I agree with the latter part of your blog post, where you explained "Here's my take on it:".
But I don't agree with your summary of Outliers' argument, "Becoming a superstar takes about 10,000 hours of hard work." Since we, and Gladwell, both agree that this is more about *expertise* than superstardom.
So… we're all in agreement for that main point. Isn't that wonderful?
@Nebulosus: Great to know! =)
10,000 hr rule applies very well in the world of surgery.Many surgeons are know as 'experts' to the public for their lectures, books, or political association positions held. In reality not all of these surgeons are experts and if they do not personally have 10,000 cases in a particular area under their belt and it is very obvious to insiders in their hospital or operating room. It is not unusual for a 'nationally know' surgeon to not be the surgeon of choice in his own hospital because he does not do the volume of a local talented surgeon who is not on the road 3 to 4 mo a year lecturing. The average orthopaedic surgeon performs 340 cases/yr. It would take that surgeon 30 years to hit the 10,000 case level, and then not all in one area. A high volume specialized surgeon doing more tham 1000 cases/yr in one area ( knees, shoulders, hand, etc) will still take 10-20 years to reach wold-class status, since he/she did not start out doing 1000 cases/yr.You can't get 'surgery hours' in as a child like golf oe tennis. It takes years in practice working very hard. Take home point: ask your surgeon how many procedures 'total' they have performed in your particular area of concern.
That's really fascinating, Dr. Meade. I didn't know the extent of this experience.