this is ridiculously untrue as a blanket statement

ivey played around 15 hours a day everyday for 10 years straight in AC

15x365x10 = 54,750!!!

Your post is the equivalent of saying...
That if Durrr trains for XXXXX hours...
He can win the Boston Marathon...
Or become a legendary Porn Star...
Or play the guitar like John Frusiante.

Obviously crazy talk.

Genius level talent...
Is very specific and very rare...
It's something you are born with... period.

But Con Artists trying to write a Bestseller...
Know that many ordinary people are stupid enough...
To buy books that are complete BS...
And laugh all the way to the bank.

THE REALITY

Talent is a prerequisite...
And VERY hard work is a requirement...
A level of obsession is required...
Because the Adult World...
Is too competitive if you don't have BOTH.

Shush, its all one country AFAIK

If you had read the book Outliers than you would know that this is actually what he is saying, he's not saying there's no such thing as talent, he is merely saying that those with talent that really excel at something put in a hell of a lot of hours doing it. Another aspect of the book that is important is the concept that there are many outside factors that enable a person to excel at something other than just their talent or perseverance.

???

Gladwell has a history of being very selective in his examples and his choice of scientific papers.

Blink was basically a load of bunk (though entertaining bunk).

Outliers is a fun read but please don't actually place any weight on his claims - they are either trivial (the Canadian hockey players being born early in the year example) or just plucked out of thin air (10k hour claim) and have little to no peer reviewed back-up.

Take the 'above 120, IQ doesn't matter' example - that's fascinating and probably true (though the studies are pretty thin as they equate 'success' with making $$$ or Nobel prizes and it's not necessarily true that these are truly indicative of 'success' in life) but he doesn't examine why that is.
For example given that the possessors of higher IQ's can carry out mental tasks more accurately and quickly why is do the studies quoted show that the 'life success' of someone with an IQ of 175 no better (in fact on average worse) than someone with 120 or 130?
It's could be that higher IQ's tend to carry other costs in terms of personality development and social interactions that cancel out (or often more than cancel out) the life advantages conferred by them in terms of pure mental ability.
Or it might be simply that very smart people find satisfaction in other things than $$$ and Nobel prizes - so opt out of the success criteria voluntarily, while those who had to struggle and work harder (becuse they aren't as smart) have more desire to achieve those things.
Gladwell doesn't really explore this properly. I just found it a book that raised a bunch on interesting facts and then moved on with only a cursory examination of them.

As for the 10k hours thing - that was the weakest of the lot. He just makes the claim, gives a few anecdotal examples and that's it. I mean practice makes you better at just about anything sure -but is there really a quantum jump at 10k hours. Where's his evidence? Nowhere...

10k hour rule complete BS. No backing in science.

Plus its a useless rule. All it states is practice makes perfect.

Forced rationality might have an effect on what types of things this applies to. In situations where your natural slant when doing an activity is strongly slanted toward self correction due to its nature then the rule is more rigid. In situations like poker since each aspect of the game requires a different skill set a player who had played 10k thousands hours of just heads up games would probably be better than most other full table players no matter how good they are.

Although you could make the case that if you put yourself in situations by playing certain types of games whose skill sets where able to cross over to each other that would allow you to become as good as a specialist.

guys stop derailing this thread. Anyway I pose an important on topic question to you: what is the psychological implcation of the comma?

This could definitely be the case. I happen to know a person like this very well.

And if that very smart person can't stand interacting with idiots, and there aren't a whole bunch of fields where you can avoid them, the options for "traditional" success dwindle mightily.

If that "very smart person" can't stand interacting with "idiots", the possibility of him having any type of real success is highly unlikely.

you're pretty much in fail mode until your first nobel prize

Nothing can be 100% true as a blanket statement, except this statement.

heh, touche i guess.

10.000 hours is about 5 million hands...

Even though Gladwell places far too much emphasis by calling it a rule, I don't think it should detract from the overall argument he was making. Yes, 10,000 is basically an arbitrary number and obviously no such number is right across all fields (or even one). But, the point he was making is that it takes a hell of a lot of work, more work than most people think, and that there are very few examples of people who are outliers that haven't put in this work.

Why do you disagree with the relative age chapter? I've seen a few studies/analysis of this and as far as I can see it's true. Maybe not for Canadian hockey players in particular, but as an overall concept I believe it is true.

Also, what qualms do you have with Blink?

nah, many ppl can do it b/c they like it and are not good.
golf comes to mind.

somebody put a +1 in the leveled counter please

ivey said he is not a natural talent/phenom. he said he jus put in sick volume

15 hours a day everyday for around 10 years in atlantic city

15 hours a day x 365 days a year x `10 years = 54,750 hours, pre fame

and you are actually dumb enough to believe that he played 15hrs/365 days?

1800 hours is a work year, 8 hours a day, holidays and vacation off. Pretty sure most pro's mentioned have put in 5+ years.

I'm pretty sure you don't need Emotional Control unless you are a losing player or an inconsistent winner.

Level? There is this thing called variance.

yes