"Outliers" debunked

[goaliewithfoggedglasses]

Outliers and the 10,000 hour rule has been referenced on this board a number of times in the years since it was published. A new book by David Epstein, senior writer at SI, takes on that theory. Here is a (rather lengthy) interview with the author. I found it interesting and thought others would as well:

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-ad ... l?page=all

[O-townClown]

Thanks for sharing. A very puzzling interview. Let's use Gladwell's example of the Beatles from the book. Music is what I'll call "skill based" and they became very good musicians with the hours and hours and hours of "practice" (actually playing) in Hamburg. I consider hockey and baseball more "skill based", and soccer too.

So the guy interviewed (Epstein) talks a great deal about track training, which is mostly conditioning and not acquisition of skill. Yes, he concludes that it is more a function of genetics.

I agree with him where he says a lot of folks misapply Gladwell's and Ericson's concept of The 10,000 Hour Rule.

[Shinbone_News]

No one really believes that world-class athletes are SIMPLY genetically gifted OR hard-working right? And no one believes the Beatles were great just because of their endless gigs in Germany.

Interesting points here, though: Elite athletes are often already pre-screened and self-selected by large pools of participants. That's why Minnesota produces a disproportionate number of high level hockey players -- kids here culturally want to play hockey more than other sports. So the normal meritocracy works to sort this pool into good, very good, and great players. Then the work ethic and "10,000 hours" idea comes into play.

What's interesting about Epstein's work is the idea that one kid might thrive with lots of training, while another may not. (To OTC's point, though, are we talking about conditioning hours or skills-training hours?) In theory, one kid with very fast-twitch muscles who is a crazy fast stickhandler might not get much better by continuing to work on his speed. That's the theory anyway, I gather.

At its heart, this question is a business question: Can trainers and training companies convince the hoi polloi that little Johnny is just one more camp away from NHL greatness, and that it's possible to overcome genetic limitations with a checkbook? That's the real rub here.

[JSR]

I don't think this guy did anything to "debunk" Gladwell's book or Ericcson's theories. If you have read anything on those subjects (or Bounce too), they all acknowledge the idea that a kid who is 6'8" has an advantage over a kid 5'6" in the game of basketball and there is no amount of practice that the 5'6" kid can do to make him 6'8", I guess this guy needs to sell his book though so it does it under he guise of debunking Gladwell......... that said I do agree with the part of finding the "right type" of training for the individual athlete, but even that only comes into play once they reach a certain point of proficiency within the scope of whatever activity they are doing. The "mass" approach still works best for the masses until certain individuals within those masses show certain levels of proficiency, at that point they probably have a need for more specialized training.... and isn't that what MM and others are "trying" to cater to, those who have a certain level of profciency already and are now trying to take the next step. Now whether they are doing it right or wrong is neither here nor there, the idea is they are marketing to that idea are they not....

[karl(east)]

A rebuttal from Gladwell: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/s ... exity.html