“It’s not enough just to be gifted. You have to go out there and figure out how to take that talent and direct it to be the best you can be. You can have extraordinary talent and work really hard every day, (but it) doesn’t mean you’re working smart, doesn’t mean you really completely understand what it takes for you to step out on the track; handle the pressure and produce the best performance when it counts.”
Malcolm.
What are you smoking? He doesn't slam Gladwell anywhere in there.
HardLoper wrote:
What are you smoking? He doesn't slam Gladwell anywhere in there.
"The four-time Olympic and eight-time world champion insisted that natural ability was “first and foremost” in the makeup of a great athlete. “You can practice for 10,000 hours but it’s (still) critical to have talent,” said Johnson."
Pretty qualified "slam".
That said, which does Bolt reach first: 10.000 hours of sprint training, or of "Daggering" (and related activities ;)
Gladwell wasn't the first person to come up with the "10,000 hours" idea, so it really wasn't a slam on Gladwell either directly or indirectly. Either way, it's an interesting read, so thanks
Gladwell did help to promote it and inject it into the general population.
Without Mercy wrote:
HardLoper wrote:What are you smoking? He doesn't slam Gladwell anywhere in there.
"The four-time Olympic and eight-time world champion insisted that natural ability was “first and foremost” in the makeup of a great athlete. “You can practice for 10,000 hours but it’s (still) critical to have talent,” said Johnson."
Pretty qualified "slam".
No it isn't. The 10,000 hour "rule" is dismissed the same way in Gladwell's own book. Do people not read the books they comment on anymore?
"qualified", as in "not really".
HardLoper wrote:
Without Mercy wrote:Pretty qualified "slam".
No it isn't. The 10,000 hour "rule" is dismissed the same way in Gladwell's own book. Do people not read the books they comment on anymore?
don't the forget the dope michael
that helps a lot too
Without Mercy wrote:
"qualified", as in "not really".
I see
Gladwell popularized the 10,000 hour rule. He did not create it. It wasn't exactly the only thing he talked about in his great book, "Outliers" either. If people actually read the book and comprehended it, they would have much less criticism for the man. I thought he made a solid argument for success being a combination of talent, training, luck, and circumstance. I honestly don't see how anyone could make any logical argument that what he said was flawed in any serious way. Thinking about it now, it reminds me of Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel" and how he applied the same reasoning and principles to human history and why things are the way they are today. Diamond received a lot of criticism for that book too, and so far all of it that I've seen makes me wonder if these people ever actually read the book, but then if Dawkins' major work was attacked under the notion that genes couldn't feel emotions and thus could not be selfish, I don't doubt may of the critics did in fact not read past the title and back cover. Same thing goes for Gladwell's books.
Looks like Johnson is repeating Gladwell -- you need talent, but above a certain threshold training makes the difference.
There are other reasons to slam Gladwell, but he does not neglect talent so much as take a "critical mass" of talent for granted.
Why on earth would 400 guy fabricate a feud between MJ and MG in order to attract interest to a Yahoo article and an anonymous thread on LetsRun...
My theory is that he's a bot farming traffic for LetsRun and Yahoo.
Most of what is wrong with Gladwell is how he presents himself as an adept in science, but cherry picks and interprets his data, while ignoring contradicting data.
Guppy wrote:
Gladwell popularized the 10,000 hour rule. He did not create it. It wasn't exactly the only thing he talked about in his great book, "Outliers" either. If people actually read the book and comprehended it, they would have much less criticism for the man. I thought he made a solid argument for success being a combination of talent, training, luck, and circumstance. I honestly don't see how anyone could make any logical argument that what he said was flawed in any serious way. Thinking about it now, it reminds me of Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel" and how he applied the same reasoning and principles to human history and why things are the way they are today. Diamond received a lot of criticism for that book too, and so far all of it that I've seen makes me wonder if these people ever actually read the book, but then if Dawkins' major work was attacked under the notion that genes couldn't feel emotions and thus could not be selfish, I don't doubt may of the critics did in fact not read past the title and back cover. Same thing goes for Gladwell's books.
Who is Michael Gladwell?
"Usain Bolt is the fastest man on the planet over 100m and 200m, but not the 400m (yet)."
Ha ha, Bolt is never going to touch the 400m record.
Hysterical. MJ had one of the worst coaches of all time in Clyde Hart and blatantly underachieved (failed to reach his potential) in the 400m. He did what he did off superior physical gifts.
Iiii wrote:
Hysterical. MJ had one of the worst coaches of all time in Clyde Hart and blatantly underachieved (failed to reach his potential) in the 400m. He did what he did off superior physical gifts.
So two World and Olympic records qualifies as underachieving?
"You have to go out there and figure out how to take that talent and direct it to be the best you can be."
In Johnson's case, he figured out that he needed hard training, and lots of steroids.
In Gladwell's case, he figured out that he needed to write journalism rather than anything rigorous or substantive.
Johnson and Gladwell--different from each other, but both sellouts. We will never know if Johnson had the native talent to excel in the 400 without the drugs, but we do know for sure that Gladwell lacks the native talent to be a serious essayist or author.
He freely admits he is significantly more journalist than scientist. More food for thought for further real scientific research.
rekrunner wrote:
Most of what is wrong with Gladwell is how he presents himself as an adept in science, but cherry picks and interprets his data, while ignoring contradicting data.