On May 3, 2014, at 10:12 AM, Don Norman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> ​I wish to voice my strong sketpicism about this 10,000 hours claim.

The last week of the semester just ended so I haven't developed the mental energy to deal with the math questions. But I had been thinking about pointing out the problem with the 10,000 hour figure. I think your list is excellent:

> the person
> the topic
> the level of mastery desired
> the level of skill desired

I want to defend Gladwell despite troubles I had with details of 'Outliers.' There aren't many journalists who manage to write about science, statistics, or anything involving numbers without revealing that they never bothered understanding what they're writing about. Gladwell is, in this respect, a positive outlier.

Gladwell's writing is tied up a little too neatly and is a bit on the "gee whiz" side but he can't be expected to communicate the nuances of an entire (often self-contradictory) field of study on a level that will satisfy experts and engage non-experts.

Scientists are as bad a designers. Graphic designers in particular used to whine that nobody knew what they did: "not even my own mother." Then people noticed us so now we whine that "every clown with a pirated copy of Photoshop thinks he's a designer." Scientist whine that people are ignorant of science and that people are uninterested in science. They don't write about science in a way that engages non-scientists and are often derisive about those who try to. Then they attack anyone outside the club who dare tread on hallowed ground by writing about them in some insufficiently scientific manner. (For anyone who might mistake this for an attack on Don's comments in particular, please note that his popular writing--although not quite as broadly appealing as Gladwell's--is a great example of the exception to what I just wrote.)

> Notice too that i said training, not practice.  There is lots of evidence
> that practice does not make one better. it is training that is required:
> training is targeted practice, with intelligent assessment afterwards (in
> design, we call that critique).

The whole question of what is done during the 10K (or some other number of hours) is interesting, as is the question of how broad the skill or expertise being acquired is and the question of how that is being described. In 'Outliers,' Gladwell wrote about the Beatles' years playing long hours Hamburg strip club as proof of the 10K rule. I found his assumption that the Beatles were self-evidently much better than other bands to be odd but even if I accepted that, he seemed to claim that they were better at musically interacting with each other. I have no idea how he decided that. And even if I accepted that assumption, it still seems like post hoc cherry picking. Couldn't we have noted that this gave them each 10K+ hours playing their instruments? Yet none of them were ever exceptional instrumentalists. What up with that?

Don's distinction is worthwhile and Gladwell was pretty sloppy with the practice vs. targeted practice distinction but in his defense, the academic work he built from was also sometimes sloppy in its descriptions.

Gladwell's point, that most of what gets called "natural talent" is better described in terms of good luck and hard work, is solid. Taking that to the conclusion that there are no natural talents is, of course, silly. Gladwell himself made the case for natural (physical) talents in questioning our ethical stance on sports doping: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2013/09/09/130909crat_atlarge_gladwell

On May 3, 2014, at 10:49 AM, "McDonagh, Deana C" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> There is a large contingent out there who do not trust books on design by non-designers, no matter how well they are written.


We shouldn't trust books on design by non-designers or books on science by non-scientists. We also shouldn't trust books on design by designers and books on science by scientists.

On May 3, 2014, at 11:21 AM, Eduardo Corte-Real <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>  if you spend 10000 hours doing something repetedly and you don't master it, there is something wrong with you, 


Or maybe the possibility of really mastering something is an indicator of a need for more challenging tasks.


Gunnar

Gunnar Swanson
East Carolina University 
graphic design program

http://www.ecu.edu/cs-cfac/soad/graphic/index.cfm
[log in to unmask]

Gunnar Swanson Design Office
1901 East 6th Street
Greenville NC 27858
USA

http://www.gunnarswanson.com
[log in to unmask]
+1 252 258-7006

-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list  <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------