Can someone do the 10,000hour rule and get back to me and tell me what there findings are? Only then and only then will I try it.

Dappa1


Can someone do the 10,000hour rule and get back to me and tell me what there findings are? Only then and only then will I try it.

Sounds like a rhetorical question, but...what would you like to know? It didn't make me famous if that's what you're wondering. Probably not worth the effort.

"Personally, I think people could use a little less encouragement to explore their "talents" these days, and maybe invest a bit in personal reflection. Plant a flower garden. Grow some tomatoes and corn. Write a poem even if you "aren't a writer" and think you have nothing to write about anyway. 

It's hard to generalize about success when societies definitions for success and achievement are so utterly skewed. Does Gladwell suggest that because the Beatles have been so globally successful that Ringo Starr is some sort of accomplished musician or songwriter? Does Bill Gates' success stem from 1000's of hours sitting at a computer... or from being an absolute pitbull salesperson, licenser, negotiator, manager, etc? Sure, being a technogeek certainly helped, but only insofar as it defined his niche -- his technical l smarts put him in the right place at the right time with the right people, but it didn't provide a framework for his overall success. 

I'd say "success" comes from the following:

1.) Luck

2.) Professional and personal connections
3.) Initiative, drive, leadership, motivation 
4.) Skill, talent, expertise, experience, etc.

All the practicing in the world can't replace or prepare you for the first 3. You either have those or you don't.

Now, when you've gotten past the notion that "success" and "achievement" are inextricably linked to financial gain, fame, power, and the like... I think you'd have to agree that Ringo Starr is by no means a "successful" artist. Another one at the right place, right time, and... erm... certainly with the right people... at least two of them... or three... if you count George Martin. :)"




Here's an excerpt from http://www.gladwell.com/outliers/index.html  of some of the promotional info about the book:

3. In what way are our explanations of success "crude?"

That's a bit of a puzzle because we certainly don't lack for interest in the subject. If you go to the bookstore, you can find a hundred success manuals, or biographies of famous people, or self-help books that promise to outline the six keys to great achievement. (Or is it seven?) So we should be pretty sophisticated on the topic. What I came to realize in writing Outliers, though, is that we've been far too focused on the individual—on describing the characteristics and habits and personality traits of those who get furthest ahead in the world. And that's the problem, because in order to understand the outlier I think you have to look around them—at their culture and community and family and generation. We've been looking at tall trees, and I think we should have been looking at the forest.


The book specifically discusses the concerns you have voiced and it explains that

"1.) Luck"


and


"2.) Professional and personal connection"


Are, to a large extent, nurtured by a education system that runs on a calendar year.

The book includes a statistical analysis showing how most athletes that end up with gold medals are born between January and March and it explains how the arbitrary, calendar year system that we use to subdivide and train the athletes creates a rhythmic cycle that  resonates in such a way as to perpetuate the phenomena. 

The book explains how "Luck" can be equated to being born in January and how professional contacts are created and fostered when the best and brightest are identified and culled from a herd.

It's pretty basic stuff.





The book isn't a self help book, nor does it dwell on the Beatles and Ringo.




The book considers that the notion of "talent" applies to far more activity than artistic endeavor.

The ideas about how we can increase the pool of "recognized" talent and increase societies' access to it seem broad based.

The notion of "talent" is extended to all professions including wildly beneficial ones such as medical research.





It's unclear to me if you have critiqued the book after reading it or if you are simply offering a generalized response.

I read the book a couple years ago... I guess I liked it enough to remember some of what I enjoyed.

I think the book will have a long lasting and positive impact on anyone who chooses to read it.



all the very best,
mike

11,000 you lazy bastards.