It really is a good book but it is common sense. Preparation meets opportunity = success.

Only thing is, I am not sure I have 10,000 hours left. At least 10,000 hours that I can devote to any one thing. When I was young I had boundless energy and nothing much to do but sit on a tailgate and have another beer. Now I am older, I have little energy and more responsibilities than any one person should have. It is a true saying, "Strength and beauty is wasted on the young".

I'm not complaining though, I do what I can, am happy with that, and life is good.

Gladwell hit a homerun with Outliers, it is a very good read, IMO.

J

jbow


It really is a good book but it is common sense. Preparation meets opportunity = success.

Only thing is, I am not sure I have 10,000 hours left. At least 10,000 hours that I can devote to any one thing. When I was young I had boundless energy and nothing much to do but sit on a tailgate and have another beer. Now I am older, I have little energy and more responsibilities than any one person should have. It is a true saying, "Strength and beauty is wasted on the young".

I'm not complaining though, I do what I can, am happy with that, and life is good.

Gladwell hit a homerun with Outliers, it is a very good read, IMO.

J

don't despair, J,  I haven't read Outliers, but I think progressing at something is as much or more akin to growing a garden than building a house.  One is alive and growing all the time, the other only is when you are actively engaged with it.  The learning process is organic, IMO, alive of its own, not merely a linear function of practice hours.  And it may be even more than that - it might, sometimes, maybe - be magic, or at least look that way, with some kind of reactive dynamic under the hood somewhere akin to seeding a crystal.  More like Kurt Vonnegut and Ice-nine than Harry Potter and his wand.  Something did happen down in Mississippi, to Robert Johnson, out there in the sweet summer sun....

mike_mccue


The idea is that with encouragement, more people can recognize and celebrate their "talent".

This just in: Honey Boo Boo has her own show!   http://www.cnn.com/video/...oint-honey-boo-boo.cnn


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. :)

Pragi


Yes , that´s it. Everything which is written in a book is real!
To repeat a song on and on is imo a very good practice to play experienced on stage, but if one repeats to much, over a certain point which is different to every musician, he will play and sound simply bored.

I see you haven't been trained in classical music ;-p

keith

mike_mccue


The idea is that with encouragement, more people can recognize and celebrate their "talent".

This just in: Honey Boo Boo has her own show!   http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t3#/video/bestoftv/2012/08/07/exp-point-honey-boo-boo.cnn


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. :)

Want to make a living while waiting to get famous:
1. punctuality
2. a car
3. a good suit or wardrobe
4. personal hygiene
5. always smile
 
Then comes talent, preparation and all the good stuff.
 
I bet Ringo is happy and enjoyed his career. And he's a fine drummer and musician to boot. I'd say that makes him "successful" so, no, I don't agree. As Marcus Miller and Kim Mitchell say, success is still loving to make music long after the audience cares or pays.

Sometimes its luck, sometimes its a 20 or 30 year story of blood, sweat, and tears.  Sometimes its death; without fame, without fortune.. Gone and forgotten.  

Point to the crowd of people saying, "what a great planet, where everything goes right for everybody, there is peace, love, and true freedom for all.  hunger does not exist.  racism does not exist. poverty does not exist. greed, war, disease, metal illness have all been cured."

You know?  Mankind has a history of problems, and problems, and problems.  There have been way more people who have: starved to death.  died horribly in some war.  been the victim of an evil crime.  lost all their money and wealth...  been burned at the stake for witchery, boiled in water for sorcery, died of plague, or aids, or cancer...  than there are Sonar users having difficulty getting a Grammy...

Yeah..  Sometimes its luck.. pfft..  plenty of times its blood, sweat and tears..  You can hear the difference in the music, see the difference in the sport, feel the difference in the person

SToons


Want to make a living while waiting to get famous:
1. punctuality
2. a car
3. a good suit or wardrobe
4. personal hygiene
5. always smile

Cell phone. Don't wanna miss that important call...

 

I bet Ringo is happy and enjoyed his career. And he's a fine drummer and musician to boot. I'd say that makes him "successful" so, no, I don't agree. As Marcus Miller and Kim Mitchell say, success is still loving to make music long after the audience cares or pays.

According to the discussion above, Gladwell uses the Beatles as an archetype of sorts for "success"... according to him, because they apparently practiced a lot as a band. Whatever you feel about Ringo, his contributions to music, his personal abilities, whatever, I find it difficult to accept that without Paul M., John L., and subsequently George M. that Ringo wouldn't be just another guy who plays music. And yet in the music world Ringo Starr today is very very successful.... because of his association with the Beatles. The point is: measuring or predicting success is much more complex than just applying broad generalizations -- like the Beatles as a band practiced a whole bunch, therefore they were destined to succeed. No... Ringo Starr, was individually successful as part of the Beatles because he was with the right people at the right time. Paul, John, and George M. were all individually successful as part of the Beatles because of their overall songwriting and production talents, but also because they were all lucky enough to be together in the same studio at the right time. George H. was probably somewhere in the middle. The success of the Beatles as a band is the result of a complex web of circumstances, dependencies, happenstances, relationships, etc. 

keith

SToons


Want to make a living while waiting to get famous:
1. punctuality
2. a car
3. a good suit or wardrobe
4. personal hygiene
5. always smile

Cell phone. Don't wanna miss that important call...

 

I bet Ringo is happy and enjoyed his career. And he's a fine drummer and musician to boot. I'd say that makes him "successful" so, no, I don't agree. As Marcus Miller and Kim Mitchell say, success is still loving to make music long after the audience cares or pays.

According to the discussion above, Gladwell uses the Beatles as an archetype of sorts for "success"... according to him, because they apparently practiced a lot as a band. Whatever you feel about Ringo, his contributions to music, his personal abilities, whatever, I find it difficult to accept that without Paul M., John L., and subsequently George M. that Ringo wouldn't be just another guy who plays music. And yet in the music world Ringo Starr today is very very successful.... because of his association with the Beatles. The point is: measuring or predicting success is much more complex than just applying broad generalizations -- like the Beatles as a band practiced a whole bunch, therefore they were destined to succeed. No... Ringo Starr, was individually successful as part of the Beatles because he was with the right people at the right time. Paul, John, and George M. were all individually successful as part of the Beatles because of their overall songwriting and production talents, but also because they were all lucky enough to be together in the same studio at the right time. George H. was probably somewhere in the middle. The success of the Beatles as a band is the result of a complex web of circumstances, dependencies, happenstances, relationships, etc. 

Understood. The problem here is you are quoting -someone else's- definition of success as you acknowledge. If no one on the planet knew the name "Ringo Starr" that might have no bearing on whether or not his career was successful. "Just another guy who plays music" sounds like a judgement call that someone has not been successful. On that basis I disagree. The fact is that you, I, nor Gladwell knows what would have been if the past was different. In general I do agree with what you posted, success, however measured, "is the result of a complex web of circumstances, dependencies, happenstances, relationships, etc.". All personal opinion of course, but in the end that may be the most important perspective.

strange world...

Why has the conversation changed to hating on someone's success because it would seem as if they did not follow the 10,000 hour rule "it would seem'.

Stop hating and get on with your life!!!