In 10,000 Hours, Malcolm Gladwell asserts that the best performers in various activities, such as sports and arts, attain their level by practicing for approximately 10,000 hours. His intention is to contribute to the question as to whether there is such a thing as innate talent and its role in personal success. He argues that talent and practice are the most critical factors of success in any activity. As such, talent alone is not enough to propel someone to the world-class level of performance. Gladwell has cited research studies as the basis for his argument and has included real examples to illustrate it.
The first is a study conducted by three psychologists at Berlin’s elite Academy of Music in the 1990s. In this study, the psychologists, with the help of the Academy professor, classified students into three categories based on their innate talent at playing the violin. They then observed the students’ progress as violinists based on their practice. The result of the study indicated that the elite performers invested a lot of time purposely and single-mindedly playing their instrument to make certain improvements. The elite performers had each totaled about 10,000 hours of practice while the merely good students had accumulated about 8,000 hours of practice at the end of the study.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Malcolm Gladwell 10000 Hours".
Similarly, Gladwell cites another study by the same psychologists indicating that the duration of practice made the difference between amateur and professional pianists. The professional pianists invested more time practicing with their instrument when compared to the armatures. The emerging theme from the studies is that people at the top work harder to improve their qualities than the average person. The studies showed that even the talented people, such as musicians, could not attain their highest level without practicing for about 10,000 hours. Gladwell uses the example of a famous talented author, Mozart, to show that becoming a professional takes time and practice. Mozart started composing his work at six but his most outstanding products came when he was in his twenties. Similarly, chess grandmasters attain their level after practicing for about 10 years.
Gladwell has effectively used logical appeal to drive his point by citing the research studies. Additionally, he has indicated that the studies were conducted by professionals, three psychologists assisted by the Academy professor (576). This makes the information about the studies credible for use in an argument. Further, Gladwell has used examples that many people can relate to. He talks about Mozart’s progress to becoming a professional author and what it takes for one to become a chess grandmaster.
Gladwell arrives at his conclusion through deductive reasoning, which uses top-down logic (Crews-Anderson 20). The deductive reasoning is that if all the professionals take about 10,000 hours of practice to get to their level, then a talented person must practice for such amount of time to become a professional. However, the figure of 10,000 hours appears to be a fallacy. A fallacy is an error in logic that is used to advance an argument (Crews-Anderson 10). From the studies, there is no direct relationship between 10,000 hours of practice and professionalism. The individual must have the innate talent and the practice must be purposeful. The figure 10,000 is a probability of the average time that it would take someone to become a professional in something. Besides, the figure of 10,000 hours appears reasonable for most people. According to Skillicorn, the figure is suitable for use in convincing the target audience but has no basis in the studies conducted. Overall, Gladwell is effective in his argument by citing research studies and showing that the studies were conducted by credible people. Additionally, he has used examples and assumptions that are suitable for the target audience.
- Crews-Anderson, Timothy. Critical thinking and informal logic. Humanities-Ebook, 2007.
- Gladwell, Malcolm. 10,000 hours. In Evergreen by Fawcett, Susan.
- Skillicorn, Nick. “The 10,000-Hour Rule Was Wrong, According to the People Who Wrote the Original Study.” INC, 2016. Web. https://www.inc.com/nick-skillicorn/the-10000-hour-rule-was-wrong-according-to-the-people-who-wrote-the-original-stu.html
