Too real to ignore.

I have always enjoyed Malcolm Gladwell as a writer who can popularize leading ideas. But you always have to watch closely. His authorial and rhetorical skills can sometimes outweigh the strength of the evidence he is advancing. (Some of my past posts on the issues attached to 10,000 hours are here.)

Came across this brief article today. From Ten-thousand hours of practice isn’t enough to make you a star by Sara Kiley Watson.

In 1993, Swedish psychologist K. Anders Ericsson set out to find the secret to turning a typical teen into a violin virtuoso. His answer? Practice: 10,000 hours of it. The figure, a simple average of a few prodigies’ regimens, stuck; journalist and author Malcolm Gladwell even dubbed it “the magic number of greatness” in his 2008 book Outliers.

The concept of ”practice makes perfect” has been drilled into the heads of ambitious youths since the Roman Empire. Anyone can be the next LeBron James, Yo-Yo Ma, or Celine Dion as long as they can devote enough time to honing their craft. But can it be that simple? Not every expert agrees. While training is essential to learning, spending a chunk of your life trying something over and over doesn’t mean you’ll go pro, says Zach Hambrick, a psychologist at Michigan State University.

Being great isn’t just about the quantity of work, he asserts, but also about the workers themselves. In reviewing different studies about the role of practice in music, games, sports, education, and professional success, Hambrick found that rehearsal time accounted for only about one-quarter of any disparity in skill level. Other factors—like age, intelligence, and natural gifts—all played big roles in setting apart the better from the best.

Genes in particular shape physical and intellectual acumen. Height might be handy for a basketball star, and a limber vocal range could help you nab the lead in Grease. And no amount of practice will make you taller or able to hit notes across every octave. Obnoxious amounts of piano playing will not make your fingers grow longer.

Hambrick has been doing some interesting work over three decades which substantially validate the overall observation G is one our most effective and stable predictors of performance.

Practice is predictive of some outcome degree of outcome but you have to take into account G, motivation, talent, behavior (perseverance), etc. are in the mix with G being the most influential.

It is a conclusion widely rejected by the blank slaters in Social Justice?critical Theory but it is also an empirical reality that cannot be simply dismissed.

But we can give these factors their proper context. Genetics plays a not inconsiderable role in individual outcomes (G is highly heritable for example). There are group differences.

But outcomes cannot by individually forecast with great precision and confidence. What is true at the group level, for a variety of reasons, may not be true for an individual.

At a group level, outcome is affected primarily by G but also by natural talent, personal interest/motivation, intensity of practice, personality dispositions, cultural values, and personal choices. Too complex to accurately model but also too real to ignore.