Is this Outliers book legit? If I practice for 10,000 hours will I stop being a midwit?

Home Forums General & off-topic Is this Outliers book legit? If I practice for 10,000 hours will I stop being a midwit?

Viewing 16 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #201645
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Is this book legit? If I practice for 10,000 hours will I stop being a midwit?

    • #201646
      Anonymous
      Guest

      QRD?

      • #201650
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >geniuses in a field are not born but made
        >tracing the history of child prodigies, they all had enormous practice early on, eg Euler was taught by Bernoulli, Mozart by his musician father, Judith Polgar home schooled in chess as soon as she could read
        >author approximates that 10,000 hours, of 3 years of non stop 9 hour a day practice, is needed to master a complex skill
        >author goes on to elaborate that the best basketball player in the world isn’t the tallest man in the world, e.g. genetics is just one factor that over time can become irrelevant

        • #201651
          Anonymous
          Guest

          There are also loads of children who received just as much training and never amounted to anything, and there are failed prodigies who were heavily praised as children and then regressed to the mean as they aged.
          I’m so tired of this social engineering radical liberalism crap. Some people are obviously born more gifted than others.
          Of course true genius is a happy miracle where talent meets opportunity, but the quality still has to be there at the beginning.

          • #201652
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >receive training
            They practiced, not just trained. You have to exercise your mind do improve. You can sit a child in a tuition class for days and he won’t learn anything. And the basis of this persistent practice is passion. The author was saying every genius in a field had a lot of practice.

            >quality has to be there from the beginning
            All three of the Polgar daughters became incredibly good at chess although Judith was the best.

            >plenty of children who get loads of training but never accomplish anything
            It might be survivorship bias, but if you tell me a child who is passionate about maths and does thousands of hours of effective learning it won’t in some way get ahead, that’s ridiculous. He would have to learn a hundred times slower than his peers.

            >some are born more gifted than others
            Yes, but the question is to what extent. How much more work will an average student need to do to be equal with a gifted student? Or will they never be equal regardless of how much more he works?

            And like you said many child prodigies burn out before ever becoming anything. Being gifted is useless without putting in any work.

            • #201653
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >every genius in a field had a lot of practice
              No shit? What a fatuous post.
              >All three of the Polgar daughters became incredibly good at chess although Judith was the best.
              They’re incredibly good for women I guess. They get completely crushed in any serious competition.

              • #201655
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >they’re incredibly good for women
                So on top of believing in some unseeable "gift" you need to succeed, you also are a sexist

                They’re incredibly good against anyone. Judit competed in the open competitions. She’s beaten everyone from Magnus Carlsen to Garry Kasparov. At her peak she was one of the highest rated grandmasters in the world.

                • #201664
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  She competed in one serious tournament and got completely embarrassed.
                  >She’s beaten Magnus!!!
                  Magnus has also lost to shitters on lichess and chess.com. What happens when the field gets serious though?
                  You sound like you don’t know a single thing about chess but are sucking her clit because she’s a strong empowered womyn. It’s pretty amusing that you’re trying to shame me for being a sexist when the sole reason you’re praising her so hard is because of what genitals she has.
                  If she was a man you wouldn’t even know her name.

                  • #201666
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    Ummm, sweaty? I don’t even need to read your post to know you’re wrong. You’ve already exposed yourself as a sexist.

                    • #201674
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      Unbearable roastie

                  • #201682
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    She better than you. Misogynistic pile of shit.

                • #201665
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >So on top of believing in some unseeable "gift" you need to succeed,
                  And what do you believe in? The blank slate?
                  kek

                  • #201667
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    >And what do you believe in? The blank slate?
                    Yes? It’s not a belief; it’s the scientific consensus. The science is literally settled. I bet you believe in stuff like race, too. Get educated, my guy.

                  • #201675
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    Largely. In practical terms the full range of genetic and neurological analysis techniques we have still haven’t found causation of intelligence. But many have been found in how long you practice, the attention you put in, the forgetting curve etc.

                • #201681
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >So on top of believing in some unseeable "gift" you need to succeed, you also are a sexist
                  Pretty sure no woman ever became the best chess player in the world. They are always behind fifth place or so.

              • #201661
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Judit was far from a world champion contender but she could play the best player in the world in her prime and still win a game here and there.

                • #201668
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >Judit was far from a world champion contender
                  That’s a pretty big caveat when he was referencing her as an example of prodigious skill.
                  Both Carlsen and Nakamura were trained at a very young age and they would have been much better examples for the point he was trying to make considering they are actually world class players, but I guess he needed to virtue signal.
                  Just the sexism of low expectations I suppose.

            • #201677
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >How much more work will an average student need to do to be equal with a gifted student?
              Woke af on my experience, a very intelligent person may learn 5-10x faster than an average person.

              >Or will they never be equal regardless of how much more he works?
              If the intelligent person is also hard working and doesn’t burn out, then the slower person will never catch up, there simply won’t be enough time in the day.

        • #201654
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >>tracing the history of child prodigies, they all had enormous practice early on, eg Euler was taught by Bernoulli, Mozart by his musician father, Judith Polgar home schooled in chess as soon as she could read
          This goes for everything. Whenever I research to top successful people in every field, subject, pursuit, ect. they either had a parent already successful in it and started training at age 5 99% of the time

        • #201683
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >tracing the history of child prodigies, they all had enormous practice early on, eg Euler was taught by Bernoulli, Mozart by his musician father, Judith Polgar home schooled in chess as soon as she could read
          There are counterexamples like Carl Friedrich Gauss.
          Gauss was born in a poor family and never got any special training or education when he was a child, yet he was reportedly a child prodigy ever since he was three years old.
          Gauss makes moot any debate of "nature vs nurture" because he had neither good genetics (his mother was illiterate and not very smart for all we know) nor good nurture. Some go so far as to postulate that Gauss’ mother must have had an affair with some famous scientist or mathematician in order for her to have produced Gauss as an offspring, though of course there is no evidence of this.
          Gauss’ biography makes it clear that being a genius is a matter of pure luck. Some people just have talent. And even the ability of putting in hard work is itself a talent, which not everybody has.
          You can come up with all the cute little theories you want about what makes a genius, but there will always be outliers that you simply can’t account for.

          • #201684
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >a single counterexample makes the entire debate moot

            • #201685
              Anonymous
              Guest

              A single rock falling towards the sky makes gravity moot.
              Social science is like astrology and you like to ignore any piece of evidence that falsifies your vague narratives that pose like "scientific" theories.

            • #201686
              Anonymous
              Guest

              When the hypothesis says "for all", then a counterexample actually decides the
              question definitively.

          • #201689
            Anonymous
            Guest

            You misunderstand, the whole 10,000 hours thing says people need 10,000 hours of practice, not be trained for 10,000 hours by someone. Gauss was very keen on math very early on anecdotally, like Kolmogorov or Tao, and did a lot of practice on it on their own.

            • #201691
              Anonymous
              Guest

              When Gauss was three years old he had already accumulated 10,000 hours of practice? Are you scrotebrained?
              You can’t explain toddlers who are considerably smarter than their peers through "hours of practice" because they haven’t been alive long enough to get the chance to practice.

              • #201695
                Anonymous
                Guest

                I’m not sure if you’re genuinely scrotebrained, but I mean he STARTED practicing at 3. Not that he was a mathematics genius at 3.

                >toddlers who are smarter
                I don’t know what is it about naturescrotes, but the debate is not whether some people might be born with advantages. Pretty freaking obviously if people are born different they have different abilities. The debate is whether they are significant or insignificant compared to how much people can improve.

    • #201647
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Yes, if you improve at least over 0.5 percent everyday

    • #201648
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Yeah but that’s because 10k hours is really really much.

      • #201679
        Anonymous
        Guest

        It really isn’t, the average wagie spends 80,000 hours of their life wagie-ing, if it were true we’d see a whole lot more master wagies yet most people are terrible at their job

    • #201649
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I’m going to knit one hell of a sweater.

    • #201656
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >using midwit unironically

      • #201657
        Anonymous
        Guest

        what the fuck is this. dont go on internet so much

      • #201670
        Anonymous
        Guest

        You know, It’s not as funny if there are to many memes in one image.
        The bellcurve got me tho.

      • #201671
        Anonymous
        Guest

        ClassicalAtheist hands made this image

    • #201658
      Anonymous
      Guest

      your iq will not incease but your math skill (or whatever you practice) will improve surely

    • #201659
      Anonymous
      Guest

      No it’s not legit. The guy who Gladwell misconstrued publicly wrote a rebuttal of Gladwell satating he was misrepresenting his research
      >Aside from not having copied the numbers from the actual paper correctly for his book. He says that there is a perfect correspondence between practice and the level of expertise a person attains. And you can’t tell that from the paper. The 10,000 hours is an average of differences. You could have two people in any endeavor and one person took 0 hours and another took 20,000 hours, which is something like what happened with two high jumpers I discuss in the book. One guy put in 20,000 and one put in 0, so there’s your average of 10,000 hours, but that tells you nothing about an individual.
      >“We looked at the two most widely studied domains of expertise research: chess and music,” says Hambrick. “It’s clear from this data that deliberate practice doesn’t account for all, nearly all or even most of the variance in performance in chess and music.” Two-thirds of the difference, in fact, was unrelated to practice. And while one player took two years to become a grandmaster; another achieved that level only after 26 years, giving them huge variance in the hours of practice they did.
      >"In contrast, Gladwell does not even mention the concept of deliberate practice,"
      Practice according to Scott Barry Kaufman accounts for 30% of variance in musicians, while Zach Hambrick found that it accounted for 34% in rank of master chessplayers, but crucially, and catastrophically for Griftwell, 7% variance in musicians was accounted for by memory, as in how well they could sight read.
      Some further reading if you’re not a midwit
      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000421
      https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1993-40718-001

      • #201662
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Looks like I’ll be a midwit forever. I hope in smart enough to work at McDonald’s or Denny’s. If I put in enough deliberate practice maybe they’ll left me manage the drive thru

    • #201660
      Anonymous
      Guest

      How does that book account for the obvious contention that people without talent aren’t going to work at something for 10,000 hours before quitting?

    • #201663
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Is this book legit? If I practice for 10,000 hours will I stop being a midwit?
      perhaps, but the second point is that success is just being in the right place at the right time. you can make yourself a genius, but you will never be as highly regarded as any famous genius you can name.

    • #201669
      Anonymous
      Guest

      > If I practice for 10,000 hours will I stop being a midwit?
      The book never says anything like that, if you couldn’t figure that out I wouldn’t be too optimistic if I were you.

    • #201672
      Anonymous
      Guest

      LULZ really is just 2/5 IQ spiteposting, 2/5 schizoposting and 1/5 worthwhile. It is remarkably similar to /ic/ in this sense.

      • #201673
        Anonymous
        Guest

        midwit take

    • #201676
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >If I practice for 10,000 hours will I stop being a midwit?
      At what? You’ll get good at what you practice, if you practice it right. That doesn’t mean you’ll be good at anything else.

    • #201678
      Anonymous
      Guest

      it’s just hard work and luck
      nothing more lol

    • #201680
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >just practice for 22,500 hours bro

      • #201687
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >that guy who put 20k hours of practice into it yet is still an intermediate
        RIP

    • #201690
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Will you have fun doing it?
      being a "midwit" isn’t so bad if you’re having fun with life.
      fuck being good at something I just do what makes me happy.

      • #201692
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >fuck being good at something I just do what makes me happy.
        Becoming good at something and then bragging about it on the internet is the only thing that makes OP happy.

        • #201693
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Ah well, I’m not gonna step on anybody’s copium I guess.

        • #201694
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Exactly. What’s the point of being good at something if Internet strangers don’t know it?

    • #201696
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >> 13746639
      Genetics is absolutely the deciding factor Only how much depends of the field.
      Sports is 100% genetics woke af; usain bolt for example having way way better muscle composition that training cant compete with.

Viewing 16 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.