Tim Ferriss v. Outliers (Malcolm Gladwell)

[Dus10]

Tim promotes this idea of deconstructing a set of skills involved in an activity, and finding the quickest path to mastery. In his latest book, Outliers, Gladwell postulates that exceptional people must be good enough (via talent), but must also practice for about 10,000 hours before they are considered an outlier, someone who really pushes the bar (this usually takes about ten years).

I would like to see Tim come up with a challenge of this, kind of like his "Trial by Fire" or Dhani Jones' "Dhani Tackles the Globe" that shows that while not being an expert, but being "good enough" or in the top X% of performers only takes Y hours (maybe Y is 24 hours, or something).

The book is really quite good and it shows that people are given opportunities, and it is the people that are good enough (meaning that have enough talent... having an extraordinary amount of talent means very little) and are adequately prepared (~10,000 hours of practice) that become innovators or revolutionaries if opportunities line up well with their "coming of age" (not too long after the ~10,000 hours of practice).

He gives many examples showing a nine year period of time (1831-1840), and the number of the 75 richest people in history that were born in that time in America, putting them at the cusp of the Industrial Revolution by the time they are in their early to mid 20's (14 of the richest people in history were born in that time period, in America). He also highlights that 1953-1955 was an optimal time for people to be born and catch their stride for the first wave of computer innovations (Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Steve Ballmer, Steve Jobs, Bill Joy... all born in that time period).

Another intersting point made in the book is about so-called meritocracy in sports and education. In sports (and education) where they sort participants by skill level (especially at an early age) and they have a calendar cut-off deadline for age (like Jan 1, or July 31, etc.) that there is an advantage given to the participants who are born within the three months just after the cut-off, because at a young age, a period of nine months tends to make a huge physiological difference. So, those children have an upperhand and do a little better, and are sorted into advanced courses or teams, and then they get more practice time and attention... and over time, they become the exceptional outliers. It is written in the book that this is fully apparent in hockey in Canada, baseball in the USA, and soccer in South America and Europe. For example, in professional hockey, there is a disproportionate amount of players born in the Jan-Mar months because of the Jan 1 cut-off in children's leagues (this is the same cut-off used in soccer, so it works that way as well), and baseball players are disproportionately born in Aug-Oct.

Overall, it is a very interesting book (so far), but I would like to see it challenged. For example, education (in the USA, at least) tends to have a July 31 cutoff, but when I was in Gifted classes, from my experience, we had a fairly spread distrubution.

[jetpacklife]

The 10k hours mark is quite interesting. I have 10k hours in computer programming, and I have been quite successful since hitting that mark. I also see how easy it becomes after that mark, it's a real joy. The problem is when looking to acquire another skill, 10k hours is very daunting. What are the other intervals that would be good shorter term goals?

[TimW]

Given the social promotion that goes on in the American education system, where VERY few people are held back, I would argue that Gladwell's view of it being a meritocracy is off.

[Dus10]

Given the social promotion that goes on in the American education system, where VERY few people are held back, I would argue that Gladwell's view of it being a meritocracy is off.

His view, actually, is that it isn't a meritocracy, but that society just likes to think it is. He indicates that for it to be closer to a meritocracy, creating three cut-offs for each year would be necessary. Also, the idea of the meritocracy is more about students being accepted into advanced courses, and not so much about passing along the underachievers... a matter of accountability, for sure.

[Dus10]

On another tangent, in the book, Gladwell discusses the "stereotype" of innate mathematical aptitude in Asians. He postulates that it isn't innate at all, but that its existence apparent. He attributes it to culture. The foundation begins with language. Asian languages have two advantages when dealing with numbers:

1) Numbers 0-10 can be said in one-quarter of a second, whereas wester cultures are varied, with the quickest numbers, like four, be said in one-third of a second. The human memory has a great skill at memorizing speech given in two seconds... so children in Asian can oft times count to 40 by the time they are five, whereas western children can only count to 15.

Further compounding this is the irregularities in western number schemes vs. the uniformity of Asian number schemes.

I took six years of French in middle and high school, and I have been teaching myself German, on and off, for two years. These are the two root foundations of the English language. Consider numbers beyond ten: in English, we have eleven and twelve that have a very week relationship to one and two; then consider 13 and 15, which kind aren't quite like three-teen and five-teen, and then 14, 16-19, have the pattern of saying the singles digit first, followed by teen (derived from the word ten); then, after twenty we do the tens digit followed by the singles digit. Also, our multiples of ten sound almost like three-ten, four-ten, etc.. but not quite.

This is very similar in German, which is where English numbers find their roots, except they are slightly more uniform.

In French, and other Latin languages, there are similarities and further irregularities. For instance, there are no real numbers for 70, 80, or 90. They use 70 as 60+10 (sousante-dix), 80 as 4x20 (quatre-vent), and 90 as (4x20)+10 (quatre-vent-dix).

In Asian languages (I do not actually know language at all), twelve would be ten-two, 24 would be two-ten-four, 63 would be six-ten-three. All very uniform and easy to learn. So, children in Asian are better at counting earlier, and the gap widens over time.

2) The other advantage is work ethic. Asians were/are wet-rice farmers. This is very hard work. You must actually construct your rice patties, unlike growing corn, for instance, where you just plow the ground and drop in some seed.

So, they spend about 3,000 hours a year working. Westerners complain about 2,000 hour work years. Hunter-gatherers of the past had 1,000 work years.

This work ethic ingrains in them a strong sense of self (which seems strange given all of the communism in the region), which helps them in problem solving.

Great math and science folk are the result.

Asians aren't typically known for their literary skill, however. This is an area that is where westerners thrive, based on the precision of our languages, especially English.

Food for thought.

[TimW]

In French, and other Latin languages, there are similarities and further irregularities. For instance, there are no real numbers for 70, 80, or 90. They use 70 as 60+10 (sousante-dix), 80 as 4x20 (quatre-vent), and 90 as (4x20)+10 (quatre-vent-dix).

Last I checked, Spanish was still considered a Latin language and most certainly has "real numbers' for 70, 80 and 90.


Thanks for clarifying that Gladwell doesn't think our educational system really is a meritocracy. It would have made me suspect everything I'd read in his earlier works.

[Dus10]

Last I checked, Spanish was still considered a Latin language and most certainly has "real numbers' for 70, 80 and 90.

Well, that was French. I asked my wife, who took a fews years of Spanish, and she said it was the same with it. However, I used Google Translate and compared Spanish and Italian, and they don't do that.

It may be that the irregularities are Germanic, as French does have some Germanic influence, as the Gaul (the main ethnic group in France) were Germanic people that adopted Latin after Roman conquest.

Thanks for clarifying that Gladwell doesn't think our educational system really is a meritocracy. It would have made me suspect everything I'd read in his earlier works.

I am actually finding him quite suspect myself, now. While I find A LOT of truth in his writings, even this latest one... there is a lot that I don't agree with. Outliers is essentially an assault on the individual; making light of their accomplishments because they are a product of the opportunities given by society. However, he never discusses the numerous opportunities that are found in everyday life, and how it is the individual that seizes these opportunities that benefits.

He talks about Bill Gates, and how he is likely the only teenage (let alone 13 year old) in the world that had as much access as he to a "modern" computer. He goes further to state that Gates had more access to a computer than most, if not all, Computer Science professors at the time.

Now, he certainly had a great opportunity to access that computer. However, every other student in his high school had that same opportunity, but they didn't seize upon it. Gates made a concerted effort to frequent the computer and practice... and he sout after and created new opportunities to gain access to computers when he no longer had access to the first, something Gladwell himself documented.

I have now read The Tipping Point and Outliers, and I will read Blink next, but it just seems that Gladwell is an advocate of societal control over people... even though he highlights success and persistence to individualism... he just doesn't like it, and wants changes to be made.

[Marcie]

Also, just for the record, my son is 4 and can count past 15. But he does get stumbled up in the teens, that part makes sense. But I expect him to be counting to over 30 by five :)

[FreedomFinder]

Also, just for the record, my son is 4 and can count past 15. But he does get stumbled up in the teens, that part makes sense. But I expect him to be counting to over 30 by five :)

With 10,000 hours of practice, no doubt he'll be able to count over 100.

What is this 10k based on? I think anytime someone puts a set time on the mastery of a skillset, unlike what Tim does, it's just a limiting belief looking to be spread. What's defined as mastery? And how is 10k hours relevant to it? I've decided it only takes 5k hours to become a semi-expert, I think I'll make a chart outlining exactly where you're at with a given amount of hours invested. At the top of the chart will be "Outlier", and once you've gotten there, you know for sure you have horrible time allocation skills, which is why you suck at everything else.

[Dus10]

The 10k hours is based off of what has been studied. Looking at the "outliers," Gladwell has concluded that expert-level typically takes about 10k hours. He focused on musicians (the Beatles, and orchestral musicians), programmers (both Gates and Joy estimated, independently, that it wasn't until about 10k hours that they were really good), and professional athletes.

I would have to say that it is probably fairly accurate. These outliers probably fit within a tight group, but there are certainly outliers from that group.

While I don't want to be boastful, and I am certainly not the best, I would say that I have mastered several skillsets. These skillsets are related and somewhat overlapping, but I think that in my ten years of IT experience, I am better than many people that specialize in one thing, at most things that I do, including those that have specialized in one thing for longer than I have even been in IT.

[Dus10]

I guess the overriding premise of the book is that the individual outlier (read "self-made" success stories) are not self-made and owe their success to society. Gladwell states that if Bill Gates were not given this series of opportunites (being born at the right time and place, having access to systems to practice, etc), he would not have been successful.

However, as stated previously, Gladwell ignores that the individual made conscious choices to take advantage of these opportunities. Also, as I previously stated, others had these same opportunities and did not capitalize upon them. I completely disagree with the premise, after thinking about it overnight. Everyone has many opportunities throughout their lifetimes. While Bill Gates may not have accomplished what he did, I have no doubt he would have been very successful with a different set of opportunities, which he no doubt would have had (like everyone else). Further, I think Gladwell has it backwards about successful individuals owing society... I think that society owes successful individuals. If we want to presuppose that these events would not have happened if the stars had not been aligned for Gates, then we must also accept that the events would not have been possible if Gates were not present to make make them happen. Society would not have benefited from the conscious decisions of the individual.

The opportunities we have certainly are based on our life and times, but they always exist. It takes a certain type of dedicated individual to recognize an opportunity and take action. If individuals stopped acting upon opportunities, then the "unremarkable" people would suffer the most; for it is the "unremarkable" who benefit the most from the efforts and successes of great individuals.

[TimW]

I speak Spanish very well (used to speak fluently according to native-speaking friends, but it's been several years since I've used it to any degree), and I can tell you that 70, 80 and 90 are NOT combinations of "sixty plus 10", "4 x twenty", etc. They are separate, distinct words (setenta, ochenta and noventa). I have no clue as to the French, as I don't speak it, but do know that Portuguese has distinct words, too.

Blink was actually a pretty good book, and really doesn't get into the whole society interation thing, IMO. It's more how one's training and insight can allow you to sense that which isn't readily apparent...such as the cop who knows something bad is going to happen, even though nobody is fighting or has a weapon or anything like that.

How a martial artist...a good one...can often sense an attack from an opponent, but can't tell you how he knew. Things like that.

Bill Gates became successful because of the opportunities he had AND his decisions surrounding those opportunities. I agree...perhaps Gladwell glosses over that, but don't know since I've not yet read Outliers.

[Dus10]

I speak Spanish very well (used to speak fluently according to native-speaking friends, but it's been several years since I've used it to any degree), and I can tell you that 70, 80 and 90 are NOT combinations of "sixty plus 10", "4 x twenty", etc. They are separate, distinct words (setenta, ochenta and noventa). I have no clue as to the French, as I don't speak it, but do know that Portuguese has distinct words, too.

I was conceding and agreeing with you; I checked with Google Translate, and you are right, and Italian is the same.

Blink was actually a pretty good book, and really doesn't get into the whole society interation thing, IMO. It's more how one's training and insight can allow you to sense that which isn't readily apparent...such as the cop who knows something bad is going to happen, even though nobody is fighting or has a weapon or anything like that.

How a martial artist...a good one...can often sense an attack from an opponent, but can't tell you how he knew. Things like that.

Bill Gates became successful because of the opportunities he had AND his decisions surrounding those opportunities. I agree...perhaps Gladwell glosses over that, but don't know since I've not yet read Outliers.

I would say that a few days out, it is a good book with a lot of good ideas. However, just understand his intent; also, I had the audio version with an interview at the end... he made it very clear.

The last part of the book is about his life and his family. It is interesting about how he basically says that his mother isn't really all that smart, it is just that she had a lot of opportunities that put her in the right places... and later created him. However, the biggest fallacy is that while he is disparaging the individual for the sake of society, he fails to see that society is merely the result of many individuals making decisions, etc. He talks about his grandmother being great, and that is why his mother turned out so well... but he doesn't really treat his grandmother as an individual.

Oh well. I will give Blink a read soon. I just picked up Angels & Demons to read (second time I have tried). I read the Da Vinci Code and loved it... I even took a course in college that covered the art and symbolism in the book, about six months before it was released. So, I should be done with it in a couple of days, and then I will likely read Blink before I get back to reading We The Living.

[coachdrew]

What's interesting to me about this debate is that Tim Ferris himself is sort of a modern-day polymath. He seems to have an intense, innate ability to quickly learn new skills and understand the underlying systems and methodologies that undergird any task or skill. His entire TV show pilot is based on this.

Then, Gladwell comes along and basically suggests that for most of us, the best we can hope to do is pick one particular skill (ideally one we like doing, right?) and spend 10k hours perfecting our abilities. . . at least if we want to be uber-successful at the level of Gates et all.

I consider Ferris to be a jack of many trades, master of none (well, maybe promotional marketing :)) and Gladwell to be a sort of myopic economist who writes short, lightly-researched books on rather obvious topics, but we'd consider both of them "successful" in a general sense.

What it all underlies for me is that there are many, many ways to skin a cat.

[Dantplayer]

Don't forget that while Ferriss comes off as being a somewhat "jack of all trades" and not over immersed in hours of monotony, he does spend plenty of time on his projects.

The time he puts into his drug company now is incomparable to the time he used to put in it when he started it, but that's standard procedure for all mini-businesses that turn out well: if you don't delegate the work, you'll die with it.

Also, he started the BrainQuicken about a year after college (or so). If you count in his speed reading courses (both failed and successful) this does represent a substantial amount of time.

I would say the 10,000 hour rule is just a ball park figure. In Entrepreneurship we have the "5-year rule" which measures up to the same equivalence. Ryan Allis supports that one. Take a look at his story and you'll find it makes quite a bit of sense.

[Dus10]

What's interesting to me about this debate is that Tim Ferris himself is sort of a modern-day polymath. He seems to have an intense, innate ability to quickly learn new skills and understand the underlying systems and methodologies that undergird any task or skill. His entire TV show pilot is based on this.

Then, Gladwell comes along and basically suggests that for most of us, the best we can hope to do is pick one particular skill (ideally one we like doing, right?) and spend 10k hours perfecting our abilities. . . at least if we want to be uber-successful at the level of Gates et all.

I consider Ferris to be a jack of many trades, master of none (well, maybe promotional marketing :)) and Gladwell to be a sort of myopic economist who writes short, lightly-researched books on rather obvious topics, but we'd consider both of them "successful" in a general sense.

What it all underlies for me is that there are many, many ways to skin a cat.

It's very interesting, and I guess what Ferris and other's (like Da Vinci) focused on were being experts at learning. Perhaps they spent 10k hours figuring our how to learn? I do the same thing, let me highlight my college career.

I always did well in school, but I never tried. I have a good memory, and merely sitting through lectures was good enough, without even taking notes. I completed high school early, and started a family. I wish I would have went to school sooner, but life happens. Anyhow, at the age of 23, I decided that I needed a BS in order to make decent money in my career. I was the primary breadwinner, so I couldn't afford to quit working to go to school and I didn't want this to be an eight years or more process. I started taking classes at the local junior college until I figured out what I wanted to do (primarily not to attend the junior college). I was able to find a reputable university that had a special program for working adults, but it was very limited (they offered two degrees, liberal/general studies and organizational leadership). The courses pretty much overlapped the business schools curriculum, so I had them list me as seeking the liberal/general studies program, but took most of the coursework for the organizational leadership. This allowed me to take three courses a semester in only one night per week (the courses met one night a week for five weeks, for 4.5 hours a night). Then, for the courses that were not offered in that program, I was able to take one regular evening course. So, for two nights a week, I was about to do 12 credit hours a semester.

When I tell people that I was able to get my BS in four years, in the evening, while keeping my full time non-McD job, and spend time with my wife and kids, it sounds amazing... and I guess it is, because there are other people that go to that same school, and they are still there for 6+ years. However, I was able to engineer the process to suit my needs and make it take much less time. Now, also consider that I didn't put much out of school time into my efforts, just as in high school. I typically spent about an hour writing papers, because I created a process for that, too.

Now, I am working on doing this same thing for my job and muse. Then, once I have that going, I am going back to school for an MBA, and then maybe to law school. Perhaps I can write a book about engineering your school experience.