
Is Gladwell's "Outliers" right that genius is all about hard work? - kareemm
http://www.bakadesuyo.com/is-malcolm-gladwells-outliers-right-that-geni?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+bakadesuyo+%28Barking+up+the+wrong+tree%29
======
DanielStraight
Number of games played, by itself, is a terrible practice metric for chess.
Study time is vital, and the _type_ of game is also extremely important. How
the player plays the game is important. Do they just play the same opening
every time? If so, they aren't going to learn as much as someone who never
plays the same thing twice. Do they review the game? The amount of practice
value squeezed out of a single game of chess is vastly different between me
and a professional, and in turn vastly different from someone who doesn't care
at all about chess and me.

You can play 10000 games of chess and not learn a thing if you aren't setting
out to learn.

~~~
mikecane
Exactly. I think Gladwell -- citing that study -- uses the term "deliberate
practice," where it's not the same thing over and over, but going beyond what
you did the day before or at least doing part of it differently, in order to
stretch and acquire more skill.

------
mikecane
Gladwell cites a study as only one component of "Outliers." The study itself
is the subject of an entire book called "Talent is Overrated." This book
should actually be read before Gladwell (which is the order I did). An excerpt
from the book is here:

[http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/21/magazines/fortune/talent_col...](http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/21/magazines/fortune/talent_colvin.fortune/index.htm)

------
dedward
I think his point is more that the common myth of the natural born "genius" is
not what society commonly thinks it is.

You can be born mentally genius at something, or innately talented at some
physical skill or other, but that the "genius" or "born talented" people we
see in society really owe a lot more of their success to practice rather than
any innate quality they were born with.

