I think it really comes down to motivation. Everyone knows you have to practice and practice to get good at anything. It's the motivation to practice that is the hard part. It's easier to stay motivated when you set goals that you actually like as opposed to goals that you think may lead to success. That's how I learned to program. I told myself that I wanted to build Z. I didn't try and practice first by building a bunch of little A's, B's, and C's instead. I shot straight for Z from the start. Yeah, I screwed up a lot and had to redo everything like 100 times, but I was motivated to get to Z. I could care less about A, B, and C, but I ended up knocking them down along the way anyway.
If your dream is to write a novel, make it your goal to write a novel! Why would you be motivated to write in some literary journal instead? (I'm trying to write a spy novel myself, and I sure as hell don't care about my college's literary journal. I'm 100% certain that trying to get anything published in something like that would suck all the motivation out of me. Plus, how can someone honestly tell me that would help toward my original goal? I think you get better at writing spy novels by... writing spy novels.)
If you've ever been in a band, you know the hardest part is keeping everyone motivated enough to stick to a consistent practice schedule. I've been in bands where a leader-type thinks he knows some guaranteed method to getting 'discovered'. Every time we would try to follow that method, we would all burn out because it wasn't fun and it was demotivating when the method would inevitably turn out to be flawed or unrealistically demanding. We would have had a much longer life span if we stuck to setting goals that kept everyone motivated instead of trying to follow some unproven method.
It's different strokes for different folks. His article highlights this. For example: rapping onstage is rapping onstage. But writing for the literary journal is not writing a novel.
To use a martial arts analogy, the rapping is kumite (sparring). You are working directly at your goal. In kumite, your feedback is kicks in the face. The article writing is kata (forms). Your are working at a parallel goal whose skills are transferrable. In kata, your feedback is angry shouting from Sensei. Either way, you get feedback and you improve.
The article's point is not method, motivation, kata, or kumite.
Rather, it is focus and measurement. Attack a precise, difficult, measurable goal, to the exclusion of all else, until victory is achieved. Then Sensei will stop shouting, and your opponent will yield.
Outliers suggests it's neither the motivation nor the method we see as genius or talent, but 10,000 hours of practice combined with the "luck" of being in the right place at the right time.
While reading the Pyramid article, it seemed to me that both an amazing amount of practice and exposure to (or in) the right venue figured in.
What the Pyramid article seems to add to practice and luck is accelerated self-improvement through a feedback mechanism. Playing hockey needs a coach. Writing a novel needs an editor. Rapping needs an audience.
Outliers is about Outliers, people who become the top 5 or 10 in their field. If you are in the top one in 10 million at something, there are still 600 people between you and Outliers territory.
Also, there wasn't 10,000 plus luck, it was the luck that put them in a position of getting the 10,000 hours.
Comments
I disagree.
I think it really comes down to motivation. Everyone knows you have to practice and practice to get good at anything. It's the motivation to practice that is the hard part. It's easier to stay motivated when you set goals that you actually like as opposed to goals that you think may lead to success. That's how I learned to program. I told myself that I wanted to build Z. I didn't try and practice first by building a bunch of little A's, B's, and C's instead. I shot straight for Z from the start. Yeah, I screwed up a lot and had to redo everything like 100 times, but I was motivated to get to Z. I could care less about A, B, and C, but I ended up knocking them down along the way anyway.
If your dream is to write a novel, make it your goal to write a novel! Why would you be motivated to write in some literary journal instead? (I'm trying to write a spy novel myself, and I sure as hell don't care about my college's literary journal. I'm 100% certain that trying to get anything published in something like that would suck all the motivation out of me. Plus, how can someone honestly tell me that would help toward my original goal? I think you get better at writing spy novels by... writing spy novels.)
If you've ever been in a band, you know the hardest part is keeping everyone motivated enough to stick to a consistent practice schedule. I've been in bands where a leader-type thinks he knows some guaranteed method to getting 'discovered'. Every time we would try to follow that method, we would all burn out because it wasn't fun and it was demotivating when the method would inevitably turn out to be flawed or unrealistically demanding. We would have had a much longer life span if we stuck to setting goals that kept everyone motivated instead of trying to follow some unproven method.
So, I say target the motivation, not the method.
It's different strokes for different folks. His article highlights this. For example: rapping onstage is rapping onstage. But writing for the literary journal is not writing a novel.
To use a martial arts analogy, the rapping is kumite (sparring). You are working directly at your goal. In kumite, your feedback is kicks in the face. The article writing is kata (forms). Your are working at a parallel goal whose skills are transferrable. In kata, your feedback is angry shouting from Sensei. Either way, you get feedback and you improve.
The article's point is not method, motivation, kata, or kumite.
Rather, it is focus and measurement. Attack a precise, difficult, measurable goal, to the exclusion of all else, until victory is achieved. Then Sensei will stop shouting, and your opponent will yield.
Outliers suggests it's neither the motivation nor the method we see as genius or talent, but 10,000 hours of practice combined with the "luck" of being in the right place at the right time.
While reading the Pyramid article, it seemed to me that both an amazing amount of practice and exposure to (or in) the right venue figured in.
What the Pyramid article seems to add to practice and luck is accelerated self-improvement through a feedback mechanism. Playing hockey needs a coach. Writing a novel needs an editor. Rapping needs an audience.
The feedback mechanism is priceless here.
Becoming increddibly good at something nobody wants is somewhat useless.
Outliers is about Outliers, people who become the top 5 or 10 in their field. If you are in the top one in 10 million at something, there are still 600 people between you and Outliers territory.
Also, there wasn't 10,000 plus luck, it was the luck that put them in a position of getting the 10,000 hours.