Interesting Recent Articles

This has currently been proposed about how much it takes to master anything. Anyone have any thought on these articles?

http://www.businessinsider.com/new-study-destroys-malcolm-gladwells-10000-rule-2014-7

http://www.businessinsider.com/malcolm-gladwell-explains-the-10000-hour-rule-2014-6

http://www.businessinsider.com/malcolm-gladwells-david-and-goliath-2013-10


Each is a bit different, but y'all might find them interesting.

I like the part about deliberate practice. It's probably the reason my DD will never be a world class soccer player. She practices a lot and even likes to practice, but she doesn't practice in a way where she asks herself how everything she does in practice will make herself better.

I believe in the 10,000 hour rule.. I just dont think that there are many kids that will spend 4 hours per day practicing. If they do they are dedicated, intelligent and naturally talented. Not like anyone is going to spend that much time on something they suck doing.

There are a number of kids who spend that kind of time - look at Olympic hopefuls. I know (from college psych) that it takes a minimum of 30 days to effectively change a bad habit and another 30 days to dribble that change. This takes concentrated and dedicated effort. If every player spent two months changing one aspect of their game in a positive way, it would certainly help change them.

Spending 10,000 hours to be better won't make anyone more intelligent and naturally talented though. Natural talent is there genetically and only enhanced by practice.

Practice can help improve anyone's game, but there is more to being a good player (in any sport) than skills. There is a natural in-born talent. There is an intense love of the game (whatever game that is) and an internal drive to be the best. Some players may have one or more of these aspects, but not all. Some may have all three and still not be able to rise to the top.

There is one illusive spark that drives someone who is truly a great talent. Some little genetic piece that not everyone has. I think that spark is different for different people (whether they are athletes, inventors, or other great). I think it is partly the constant striving to be best - a competition with one's self.

I have seen this in many areas, sports, art, business. It generally isn't a competition with others, it is an internal competition, a compulsion to do more to do it better, bigger. Not because of some hourly formula, but because the drive to excel just couldn't be denied.

It is a wondrous thing when a person finds the one thing they truly love that consumes them and drives them. Most of us stop short of that either from fear of failure or fear of success.

Offsides wrote:I believe in the 10,000 hour rule.. I just dont think that there are many kids that will spend 4 hours per day practicing. If they do they are dedicated, intelligent and naturally talented. Not like anyone is going to spend that much time on something they suck doing.

Why does the fact that you are dedicated and will spend 4 hours practicing mean you are intelligent and naturally talented?

I know several kids who have spent many hours over the years dedicated to practicing who had very little natural talent and were very limited in their ability to contribute in a game.

I probably should have made a different topic about the last article, but do y'all have any thought about that one?

Is it Better to be a Big Fish in a Little Pond?

That's a tough one Ref.  Big Fish in a little Pond and application to North Texas Soccer.    It really depends.  I hate to be wishy washy on this idea but a lot could be argued on both sides.  I'll take the arguement of standing out.  It might be easier to stand out as a big fish in a little pond.  The question is are there enough guppies around to push the big fish.  If there are then I think it is better.  If not then it can't be better.  The tough part I guess is determining the quality of the other fish.  Also the other question is there a way to get the big fish to push to want to be bigger even if they are in a small pond.  Malcom always has thought provaking questions.  Don't really know if there is a correct answer.  It really in my opinon depends on the type of fish your child is.  Because some succeed in a big ocean, some need the little pond and some would succeed weather it's an ocean or a puddle.

Hmm, big fish or big pond? That is a good question. I think that it not only depends on the individual but the circumstances surrounding that individual. Some excel going against a lot of fish while others get lost. I agree with Marvel - it really depends on the individual.

It isn't so much where you are as to how you react to it.

Dear fish,

In fairness to all I have instructed congress to pass legislation where all fish and all ponds will be equal in size. Big fish will be penalized accordingly, because equality is everything. If they will not act, then I will.

Love, Uncle Sam

RightWingDad wrote:Dear fish,

In fairness to all I have instructed congress to pass legislation where all fish and all ponds will be equal in size. Big fish will be penalized accordingly, because equality is everything. If they will not act, then I will.

Love, Uncle Sam

Priceless.

Right wing.  That my friend is funny.  The problem is the more one tries to make one equal the more those who are not equal will stand up to be noticed.  I had this theory.  If you gave every American 500K on January 1.  By December 31 90% of that money would find itself into 10% of the population with the remainder having to ask the 10% for help.  That's why socialism doesn't work.  Even though it seems Uncle Sam is trying his best to equalize the lakes and wondering why they never get equal.  Fish seems to be the one species that tend to be more carnivorous then other species.  Little Fish are Eaten by bigger fish that are subsequently eaten by a bigger fish.  I think they are always trying to be the biggest fish.

Ah, but you don't have to be the big fish, you just have to be faster.   

The Dutch are socialists, and they keep making deep runs in World Cup and leading the trends in world football...Finland has 100 pct literacy and one of the highest standards of living in the world...so socialists live the best and play the best football...what else is there?  

Can not argue with that logic. The Dutch are playing some great football. Maybe Big Fish in a little pond worked out for Van Persie. Robin, Kuyt, Sneijder. Talent identification is a lot better there then here. ( Hope they beat Argentina) Looks like Oranje vs Dutchland. Early in today's match

Even if things are equalized, what do you do with the fish that won't swim?

Die Deutschen waren heute große Fische!

Lefty wrote:Even if things are equalized, what do you do with the fish that won't swim?

My dd played on a rec team once where they wanted to give them all medals...even those who did not swim. Hey, everyone's a champion in Equal World.

4-3-3 wrote:The Dutch are socialists, and they keep making deep runs in World Cup and leading the trends in world football...Finland has 100 pct literacy and one of the highest standards of living in the world...so socialists live the best and play the best football...what else is there?  

Had a good friend of mine who's family was from Denmark. His dad owned a successful business. The standard of living in Denmark is quite high and I'm sure they play great football...probably because they have the extra time to focus on it.

My friend always said, had his family lived here they would have enormous wealth. But in a country where at the time had a 64% tax rate there was no money for much else. But hey, they have great public transportation and great libraries.