Outliers: The 10,000 hour rule

Avocados Number wrote:

"Malmo," you were a decent runner, but you're an argumentative dope who hates to admit when he's wrong. You never came close to running 100,000 "easy" miles at sub-6 pace. That's one hundred "easy" miles per week at sub-6 pace for twenty years, plus your "moderate" and "hard" runs. Maybe Paul Tergat has come close to that, but you sure as hell haven't. Neither has Rodgers or Shorter or any of the other guys from those days.

You're describing yourself to a tee. I make a simple straightforward and factual statement, and you take it down with ad hominem, distortion, hyperbole and strawman argument. I have never claimed to run 100,000 miles. I doubt it is over 90,000. You cannot handle a simple statement that isn’t congruent with your ignorance and lack of experience. I’ve trained with so many great runners it would make your head spin. At one time I was the 2nd fastest half-marathoner in world history. Another, I was the 22nd fastest steeplechase in world history. I’ve been competitive against the best 1500m runners in the world in Oslo, all the way up to being competitive against the best marathoner runners in the world. And I don't even have a marathoners body. One would think that I would have accumulated just a smidgen more knowledge than some anonymous blowhard on an internet message board. You sir, have zero credibility. If one were to run easy 6:00 miles for 10,000 hours he certainly would put in 100,000 regardless whether or not your feeble mind can grasp it.

In the book "Your Brain on Music" the author talks some about this thesis of 10,000 hours.

As for the comment (about the 5-10 in the thread) about 'no one with IQ of 100 being able to win a Nobel Prize (presumably in the sciences)', I think that there are some exceptions. My memory is that Faraday was one such exception, with an IQ estimated to be about 105. However, a quick look at bio material indicates that it might well be someone else of similar stature and in that general time frame.

Malmo, no one has ever questioned that you were once a good runner. But you're also an argumentative dope. There was nothing in my comment to the original poster that justified your criticism. In fact, it's pretty obvious that you hadn't even read the book that we were discussing and weren't familiar with Gladwell's thesis. You just wanted to attack someone who had taken you down a peg or two in some long-forgotten debate. You still haven't pointed out anything that I've said in this thread that has been erroneous or even particularly controversial.

The listing of your daily 8.5-mile runs over the course of a few weeks a quarter of a century ago was, however, amusingly pathetic.

Avocados Number, you are one of my favorite posters.

jonesy. wrote:

I'm sympathetic to your reaction to the tone, but again, he claims only that 30,000 miles would be enough to reach one's potential and that 10,000 hours would be enough for an elite runner to go 100,000 miles.

Jonesy, I do appreciate your effort to be a cool head amongst the mud-slinging, but if he really had said "only" that, there would be no dispute. In fact, his very first words in this thread were "Avocadros Number, as usual, you read into things too literally and miss the message entirely." As you and I seem to agree, Gladwell's 10,000-hour rule was not merely a statement that high achievement takes hard effort, but rather was a thesis that he proposed to be taken literally. If malmo had been more knowledgeable about the subject of the discussion, and had not been predisposed to be quarrelsome and insulting, there would have been no debate.

return to index wrote:

Avocados Number, you are one of my favorite posters.

Thanks, malmo. I felt the affection, deep down. :)

return to index wrote:

Avocados Number, you are one of my favorite posters.

Thanks, malmo. I actually do feel the affection, deep down, even if it's difficult to express directly. :)

ahah, I'm not malmo (different gender and different citizenship).

Just kidding. Thanks for the kind words.

Η επανάληψη είναι η μητέρα της μάθησης

Vigilantes, I think you will understand.

fUrCeOsNhN wrote:

Just read the first 40 or so pages of the book Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell. It's really interesting so far, and right now it is talking about the correlation between practicing a skill and the level at which you can perform that skill.

As well as being brilliant, Malcolm was a talented high school and college runner. I think he retired with a 3:54 PR from an indoor 1500. Ran about 4:05 as a 14 year old. Was always in a hurry--Ontario's five years of high school in four; four-year honours university degree in three. And a genuinely nice guy. I'm really happy for his success, even if he did kick my ass all over Canada.

fUrCeOsNhN wrote: The researchers could not find someone who was among the very best who did not spend a massive amount of time practicing the skill, and they also could not find an individual who spent the necessary years practicing the skill who was not among the elite performers.

I truly doubt they looked hard enough. There are certainly people who became world class in one of the disciplines they looked at before meeting the researchers' "magic number" of practice hours, and there are absolutely some people that have put in 10,000 hours at some hobby that they are very mediocre at. Look at some of the posters we have at this site. They have probably spent 100,000 hours on here and they still suck at posting! (ok, now that's where someone says: 'look in the mirror, Sir Lance-alot.')

[quote]fUrCeOsNhN wrote: Even Mozart, who was supposedly the greatest child prodigy of all, did not complete his best work until 20 years of composing several hours a day. His "natural talent" was nothing more then an incredible workload over an incredible length of time.

What nonsense. So Mozart was not really that gifted, he just was a hard worker?? Puh-leaze. And so what if he "did not complete his BEST work until 20 years of composing several hours a day" ? If I ran a 3:56 mile at age 10 after only a few years running, but did not a 3:40 until I was 25 and by then had run lots of mileage, would you say: 'hey, that guy wasn't really talented, he just worked incredibly hard. Remember, it took him maaaany years before he set the world record." It's a beyond inane argument. Read any serious Mozart bio and there is no "supposedly" about it, Mozart was incredibly gifted musician and composer at a young age prior to having spent "massive amounts of time" at it.

And the whole argument ignores an obvious reality: that those who have great success with something, often BECAUSE of their talent, will obviously be more likely to spend lots of time doing what they are good at and that comes naturally to them. So the gifted will gravitate towards spending lots of time at the thing that brings them joy, attention, and ego-gratification, and that they can make a living at, while people who are not good at something will usually quit doing it. So of course it is more likely you will find lots of the "best" in various disciplines who have spent lots of hours doing that discipline. Duh.

At the end you asked: "Does this apply to running?" It seems you asked, but then quickly realized it was a silly question. First of all, when you say "running", clearly there are lots of different events, right? Do you think world class sprinters spent 10,000 hours of practice (and we are not counting laying on the grass listening to their ipod) before they became great?? Didn't Usain Bolt run world class times by age 16 or so? And didn't Wariner run low 45 during his 2nd year of running in high school. They probably spent less than 1000 hours of practice before they were world class, so a resounding no to your question.

For those that said this Gladwell guy's method have been criticized as unscientific, it doesn't surprise me in the least.

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

What nonsense. So Mozart was not really that gifted, he just was a hard worker?? Puh-leaze. And so what if he "did not complete his BEST work until 20 years of composing several hours a day" ? If I ran a 3:56 mile at age 10 after only a few years running, but did not a 3:40 until I was 25 and by then had run lots of mileage, would you say: 'hey, that guy wasn't really talented, he just worked incredibly hard. Remember, it took him maaaany years before he set the world record." It's a beyond inane argument. Read any serious Mozart bio and there is no "supposedly" about it, Mozart was incredibly gifted musician and composer at a young age prior to having spent "massive amounts of time" at it.

Speaking of inane arguments, I think your example of a ten year old boy running a 3:56 mile is a close second. If you had said 4:35 or something reasonable maybe people would take you seriously.

In the book though, I could tell that the facts were bent a little in the Mozart argument-saying that his father helped him write the music, downplaying his natural talent and stressing the practice.

And by "running" I meant 800 and up. This obviously holds for sprinting about as much as gum chewing skills.

And yes, I realize that running and the 10,000 hour rule might not match up perfectly for several reasons, which I came up with after I finished the book and thought about it for a bit. They are posted perviously in the thread.

I do agree with the success breeds success idea though. It is sort of a snowballing effect. The best at anything clearly LOVE to do it and have a passion for it-whether it is Haile running, Will Hunting doing math, Pavarotti singing Opera or Mozart composing.

Not only are you uber-defensive and reactionary, you're a douche. Both are traits commonly exhibited by those suffering from an inferiority complex.

So the real moral (of the book, not the running argument) is that the way to create people with great abilities is for their parents to push them very hard as children?

It makes me kind of disappointed that I was never pushed or challenged at anything at which I was talented as a child.

yetanotherchick wrote:

So the real moral (of the book, not the running argument) is that the way to create people with great abilities is for their parents to push them very hard as children?

It makes me kind of disappointed that I was never pushed or challenged at anything at which I was talented as a child.

Yea. Also it states that culture is important as well, giving an example of something about why Asians are so good at math is because of their work ethic. I think this arguement has some merit-Chinese and Japanese students spend way more time studying and have a much shorter Summer vacation then American students.

Also, the book looked at the test score gap between rich and poor students and found that the reason that rich kids scored higher was mainly due to learning during the summer vacation while poor kids did not advance their test scores or even got worse. Both groups learned the same amount during the school year. The summer environment was just different for the rich kids and their parents but an emphasis on learning.

Interesting stuff, although I get the feeling the researchers ignored stuff that didn't support their theories.

fUrCeOsNhN wrote:

Also, the book looked at the test score gap between rich and poor students and found that the reason that rich kids scored higher was mainly due to learning during the summer vacation while poor kids did not advance their test scores or even got worse. Both groups learned the same amount during the school year. The summer environment was just different for the rich kids and their parents but an emphasis on learning.

As a white person, who's been white all of her life, and have any white friends, I don't know anyone who was learning during Summer vacation.

Race is a more determinate factor than either wealth or parental educational background when it comes to test scores.

White chicks kick ass wrote:

As a white person, who's been white all of her life, and have any white friends, I don't know anyone who was learning during Summer vacation.

Race is a more determinate factor than either wealth or parental educational background when it comes to test scores.

Image:

http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/testg0%7Bimage2%7D.gif

Image:

http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/testg0%7Bimage0%7D.gif

Image:

http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/testg0%7Bimage1%7D.gif

Image:

http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/testg1%7Bimage0%7D.gif

Wow, those are some pretty crazy charts. And I didn't exactly hit the schoolbooks either over the summer, but there are other ways to learn. The author states that the reason we are falling behind the asian countries are because of our long summer vacation. No child left behind and other programs to get competetive with the rest of the world are failing because our school system for the most part is fine-kids just need more of it.

fUrCeOsNhN wrote:No child left behind and other programs to get competetive with the rest of the world are failing because our school system for the most part is fine-kids just need more of it.

Teachers unions are the reason our schools are falling behind.