Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

They just got lucky? What about the 10,000 hours they put in?!

Well, that's the point. Bill Gates got lucky by being in the right set of circumstances that allowed him get all those hours in. Being in the school he was in that had access to the mainframe, being near UofW where he was able to use a main frame at night... those lucky circumstances lead him to be who he was. So when I say luck, its that they were lucky enough to be able to put in 10K hours.

Seems you have ignored the part about the KIPP schools. Modeling a school after the cultural norms of rice farmer work ethic seems to have been highly effective at educating children in the poorest communities. This seems relevant and documentable.

Katie wrote: "They just got lucky? What about the 10,000 hours they put in?!"
THe other aspect of their experiences was not just 10,000 hours, but also included additional high quality instruction. You can't learn higher level programming unless you have access to high quality equipment. Hockey players can get better at hockey with only 10,000 hours of slap shots. These young hockey players add the added benefit of being coached by knoledgeable and experienced coaches who taught them things they might not have had access to.

I haven't ignored anything but that was a minor point in the book - and actually the rice farmer vs. education style was one of the most interesting parts in the book. But that's an individual chapter - which, as I said, is more interesting then the whole.

Interestingly, you've allowed the title and the subtitle of this book to shape your impressions. To say that this book is about "how succesful people got lucky due to their uncontrollable opportunities" is to ignore so many other fascinating and impactful points that Gladwell makes. Gladwell systematically pulls back the layers of perception on culture, race, education, social stratification, and the rise of the succesful elite throughout history. If I were to take anything away from this book it would have nothing to do with people becoming "successful" but that to improve the collective human condition we must start at the root of influence; Culture. I am almost certain that was the point that Gladwell was getting at with this book but approached it so subtly it was easily missed.

Ah, yes, well I assumed the title and subtitle may have something to do with the premise of the book. And if that was his point then why didn't he make it better? Gladwell's not exactly what I'd call subtle. Not that I'm invalidating what you found relevant in the book. I can see exactly why you're saying that. I just don't think that was his point.

I agree with Dyon - I felt the book touched on deeper issues than our celebrity culture fuelled idea of success. After reading it I understood that small changes to the status quo (for example, in education) could make a big impact on the lives of many.

I'll agree with that. I just don't agree it was the main point of the book.

If that was the point of the book then he could've done a much better job of presenting it then he did. That's one of the reasons I gave it 3 stars - there were far more interesting and deeper issues he touched on that maybe should've been the focus of the book. Instead time and time again he focuses on someone getting the time to practice something they're naturally good at.

Its funny how often I recommend this book to people. Its happened three times in the past week and I read then dang thing 9 months ago.

Maybe that's how you would sum it up, but the book is very interesting to read. Besides, it's a difficult book to tell someone what it exactly is about. There is a lot to it.

sorry to say but you are entirely missing the point here. This is not about bashing on geniuses and pointing out how their achievements are not as much their merit as people usually think.

This is about how we can make the world a better place if we understand how the "making of a genius" works.

Dan wrote: "sorry to say but you are entirely missing the point here. This is not about bashing on geniuses and pointing out how their achievements are not as much their merit as people usually think.

This is..."

How did you get 'bashing on geniuses' out of my review? If that's what you got out of my review I'm not surprised you saw the book the way you did.

Eric wrote: "How did you get 'bashing on geniuses' out of my review? If that's what you got out of my review I'm not surprised you saw the book the way you did."


well just from the first phrase: "...smart people don't automatically become successful, they do so because they got lucky"

I should ask in reply, what can be surprising about the way I see the book? I belive it is the right way to see it.

Dan wrote: "Eric wrote: "How did you get 'bashing on geniuses' out of my review? If that's what you got out of my review I'm not surprised you saw the book the way you did."


well just from the first phrase: ..."

Oh, that... all that meant was the Gates got lucky by being in a place where he had access to a mainframe at a very young age or the Beatles got lucky by being able to play at a club 5 hours a day for months or whatever it was. Or that Oppenheimer had professors who saw his potential rather than seeing him as a poisoner. In each case there was a set of circumstances that significantly contributed to the person's rise to success. Juxtaposed with this was that guy - who's name I can't recall now - who failed at college because he found his professors to not really care about his personal circumstances so he fell through the cracks.

As for my comment about your comment... OK I was just being snarky because of the 'bashing on geniuses' comment you made. My only critique of how you see the book is that its not comprehensive enough meaning: can you analyze Einstein or the Rolling Stones or Hawking or Steve Jobs or a host of others and come up with the same result - that there was 10,000 hours of practice that put them over the top? That's why I felt like he was cherry picking a bit to make his point. If the answer is yes, then that's fantastic but based on this book alone I think he's just got a good theory.

I'm with Katie. When you put in 10,000 hours things happen!

Einstein did do a lot of hard work. While he worked at the patent office in was putting in his 10,000 hours. “Much of his work at the patent office related to questions about transmission of electric signals and electrical-mechanical synchronization of time, two technical problems that show up conspicuously in the thought experiments that eventually led Einstein to his radical conclusions about the nature of light and the fundamental connection between space and time. � - Wikipedia

Einstein is also a poor example because some of his work was influenced by his wife's, a genius in her own right.

You're also influenced by your teachers, but you would never say that Einstein was not a genius because he took classes.

Josie wrote: "You're also influenced by your teachers, but you would never say that Einstein was not a genius because he took classes."

Josie, "influenced" should have been in quotation marks. I used the word facetiously to indicate that some feel Einstein actually stole her work and published it his own name.

Coming back to this thread from many years later. What I'd like to point out to Eric (et al) is that while Gladwell is seldom noted for being subtle ...the most profound message of this book is indeed so subtle that it's difficult to appreciate. And since no one has noted it in this thread, I feel compelled to. SO think about it, Gladwell spends the first half of the book discussing 10,000 hours as precedent to success & mastery (Gates, Beatles, Michael Jordan, etc). Then very strangely (halfway through the book) he shifts the focus of his topic to ethnic cultures, and the role they play in defining familial culture and the generations it takes to establish and pass down the fruits of a strong familial culture (the focus on education, work ethic, social skills, frugality, life lessons, etc). THEN, even more oddly he spends the last chapter of the book discussing WHAT .... the story of his great-grandmother (a descendant of Caribbean slaves). If you stop and connect all these dots, it becomes apparent (to me anyway) that Gladwell is attempting to explain the plight of the African American ... in a very subtle manner so that he isn't instantly brushed off or rebuked. Maybe this is the only way to get Americans to consider the haunting injustices of slavery and Jim Crowe, whose ill effects still linger and will continue to do so in American society for perhaps generations to come. This super clever and subtle undercurrent of the book is masterful. And the message it carries ..... makes it a must read for all Americans.

"The parts of this book were more interesting than the whole." -> I think this is the most accurate one-sentence summary of every Gladwell book ever! <3