Depends on what you're doing. There's also ways to make information fun. One of my favorite channels on RUclips called Oversimplified makes learning history fun.
The library is one of the few places we go to in the modern day where we aren't expected to spend money. It's also an incredible resource for so many people and for so many reasons.
Librarians are also trained to Select quality materials. The Internet will take any trash. And Google's "Fact checkers" are all journalists! Not a librarian in sight! Retired librarian P.S. A great example of analyzing research is the "Dr. John Campbell" channel on Covid. PhD in nursing education.
Also the library is more than just books. Audiobooks, tv shows, movies, video games, and a lot of free services, all without ads. Find me another LEGAL service that provides those services for a similar price.
I really like how Gladwell prefaces every answer by explaining the question to establish context and get his audience to a more level playing field. Clearly a great storyteller and teacher at heart. Also serendipitous search is why I love going to small second hand bookstores.
The best part is…even though there are some totally random questions like “why fries taste better as a child” or “is country music sad”, Malcolm just straight up has a serious explanation to answer every single one of those questions.
1:00 One thing I was taught when I took a term of technical writing (don't ever do that to yourself) was to use the sources linked to Wikipedia as citations. So Wikipedia gives you the broad overview, but any Wikipedia article that can support its own weight will have plenty of linked pages to use as primary sources.
I also recommend this strategy when you find a really good paper on your topic. Use their reference lists! I especially like using textbook chapters for this. Find the true experts others are citing and see what THEY are saying.
"Who's going to a library?" Is the most privileged thing I've ever heard. If that person got off Twitter and actually went to a library, they would find a haven for parents who need something fun to do with toddlers in the winter, the underprivileged attending employment workshops and students who don't have a safe space to study.
If you went to a library you'd know the word you're looking for is ignorant, not privileged. Privelege does not go hand in hand with not understanding something, but ignorance does as it is a lack of information or knowledge. Someone not priveleged can be ignorant but someone ignorant is not inherently priveleged.
2 things to the library thing: A lot of libraries do digitalise their content, including most university libraries I am aware of. Vienna has an incredibly old library that is one of the largest in the world which is (still in the process of) digitalising their whole collection. For me, libraries are good as a place to study. That is, at least for university libraries, one of their main functions
10,000 WITH CONSTANT FEEDBACK! The feedback is EXTREMELY important for this rule. If you spent 10,000 hours drawing a circle until it was the best possible circle you've ever seen, if you have no feedback, no one was there to tell you you were drawing a triangle the whole time.
@@TreeSymphony52 Results-oriented thinking is very, very bad and there’s a ton of research on the subject. That point guard needs constant coaching to continue to be successful.
This! The guy who wrote the study Gladwell references, K. Anders Ericsson, say it needs to be 'deliberate practice' guided by someone better who can push you out of your comfort zone and give you feedback. Freakonomics has a great episode called 'How to Become Great at Just About Anything' that really demonstrates how it works by following a woman who decided to become a singer.
Malcolm has it in one. Having parents who can buy, encourage, and steer a child toward resources, activities, and information that can help them expand on the information they get in school results in students much better prepared and ready for the complexities of advanced study and the world.
Such a beautiful mind and authentic soul. He's definitely near the top of my list of people I'd choose to have coffee with if I could choose anyone on the planet.
"The biggest determination of success is having rich parents." Couldn't be more true. I have personally seen both sides. Smart and not so smart with rich or poor parents. Often, having access to more resources is always more beneficial no matter how you are intellectually. Regardless of your skills, attitude and situation in life, better financial stability is always the deciding factor to reaching your aspirations a.k.a. being successful. This just means, hopefully your ancestors have been gradually improving their financial stability and you got a better deal in life now compared to others.
no i think having immigrants as parents is a big determination of success. looka t all the succesful koreans who came to the us with nothing , they own businesses and their children are often very successful. you have plenty of kids of rich parents who are fuckups, drug addicts , losers etc.
The biggest determinations I think comes down to desire, chance, and opportunity. Money can’t help if your life will come to an early end due to unforeseen incurable disease.
Part of the problem with Google, that I wish he mentioned more explicitly, is that it's algorithm gives you results that it thinks you want. Which means, for instance,if you are in a certain political party, it will give you results that agree with your views.
The way he answered the ghost question without being condescending was very impressive, being someone who doesnt believe in ghosts i myself found in my head it would be hard for me to do something like that, so i found that impressive.
Tabs - I open a lot and try to close them whenever I can. Some are recipes for cooking or baking, others are musical training clips, others are news, health, and how to clips. Tabs are a smorgasbord of ideas you might have interest with and you constantly need to prune them to manage your time.
When I was young I was told that people have natural talent and if you didn't get good quickly than you never will. It's embarrassing the number of things I started and quit.
Gladwell will always be a rockstar. Zombardo's experiment wasn't faked - just incredibly unethical and extremely poorly planned haha. But evocative nonetheless. I've also come to not like how Gladwell describes the 10,000 hour rule. The original research wasn't just that at the end of 10,000 hours, you're an expert, but that people who were experts had typically put in at least 10,000 hours in deliberate practice. Actually meaningfully getting better at your craft. It's a reminder to be active and purposeful in improvement, rather than expect much of passive osmosis on the job. Gladwell knows that, of course, but lots of people who hear it explained don't (and some even think something magical happens at 10k+1).
It doesn’t meaning being an expert at doing the thing. It’s being an expert on the thing itself. Meaning you won’t be an NBA player for playing 10 years straight but you’ll definitely know what makes someone good and how!
Yeah he said if you became expert you will need min 10k hours, some ppl not expert even have 10k hours, because in some point ppl stop learning or evolving
I like that he didn't crap on the ghost story question. Things aren't false just because the evidence is weak and they aren't investigated in effective ways. They're just not known to be true. An important middle ground.
DARPA - The branch of military that does research has/ does spend millions of dollars on paranormal research. There might be something to be said about that.
Evidence is weak?? Here is a thought- there is zero evidence. Any educated scientist/investigator will tell you that “eyewitness testimony “ is absolutely zero evidence.
Scientifically speaking. But colloquially speaking, they're false. There have been ample time, resources and stakes but no results. Given that a research topic like this would be extremely lucrative and world-changing, having nothing of substance after decades of research means it is so likely to be false that we can call it false. While technically the chance that I am a robot shark with laser arms is non-zero, in everyday language it is so unlikely that the statement is considered false. Exacerbated by the existence of ghosts in the natural world being unfalsifiable, the existence of ghosts as supernatural entities being by definition not subject to the scientific method and the non-existence of ghosts not being falsified in spite of absurd incentives.
I like that he doesn't dismiss the subject of ghost research because the evidence is mostly anecdotal, but rather tells them to go out and interview a lot of people so they can compile that information
woah for some reason this is my favorite wired support. it feels like a trustable source about the truths about life, just because he seems like a very skeptical person.
I love Malcolm Galdwell. He made a few mistakes writing about Anders Ericsson's investigation and paper about 10,000 Hours. But I followed it (Starting as soon as Outliers was published.) I also read Ericsson's paper, which is online and easy to follow. I think Gladwell makes mistakes here. 10,000 hours won't make you an 'expert,' it will make you world class . The music school example was 2000 hours of practice (I don't remember the exact numbers) and you can teach music to kids, 6000 hours you can get a job in an orchestra, but 10,000 hours of deliberate focused practices can make you a soloist. But this is what I love about Malcolm Gladwell, he doesn't have to be right he just has to be engaging and exciting and interesting and fun and make ideas start popping in our heads. In the community of Echo Park we started painting out gang graffiti in the late 1980s. The gang kids painted even more. They were kicking out butts. No matter what we did they were winning. (Winning wasn't just unsightly, it led to shootings between the gangs.) Then one day our Senior Lead Officer Joe Writer told us, "The armed robbery rate went to zero last month!" That's great, who got arrested? "That's the thing. No one. Talking with my Captain (Keith Bushy) we think it might be those beige squares you guys are painting." None of us know about Broken Windows. But we kept it up. We also tried anything we could think of, planting trees, sponsoring trash cans.... Things kept getting better. At one point the older gang guys were working with us. Then Joe sent us to a police training at USC. The cops in the room all grumbled, 'Why are there civilians here?" We didn't know. Joe sent us. Then the instructor started talking about Broken Windows. We all thought, Hey, wait a minute. We invented this? I was going to write a book. Apparently we weren't the only ones to figure this out. Joe laughed. He just wanted our minds to be blown as his was at that training. Here's where the problem in this lies. In New York City they started giving all the credit to Mayor Guiliani for 'cracking down on crime.' In the L.A. Times the third or fourth Northeasst Captain after Bushy said, "When the yuppies moved in, they started fixing up the ...." No! that wasn't what happened! So if you don't understand, don't want to understand, how can you learn and repeat a process? Human nature doesn't change... but when it does, when people can stop applying their prejudices, that's when progress is made. Here's a ghost story. My wife and I got lost in the San Gabriel Mountains, had to spend the night and walk out in the morning. On the way to getting lost I met a very old man with piercing blue eyes who just started talking about being lost in a nearby canyon on a moonless night. (I knew that night would also be moonless.) Well that happened to us. we spent the night up there. When I went back to retrieve my bicycle I told the ranger. what had happened. He said, "That sounds like old Jimmy, but he died a few years ago. I wonder who it was." I said, "Stop right there. It's now a ghost story." I'm sure I could eventually find out who that was....but why bother? It's more fun as a ghost story.
I like the question about the library. I understand why that person asked that question. I'm one of the people that go often. They're quiet; there's a lot you can learn at a library that's if you open a book.
Zimbardo interfered with the Stanford Prison experiment, he told them to do what they did because they weren't doing anything interesting. At least that's what the book Humankind by Rutger Bregman details as part of his exploration into why we think we are bad people when we kind of aren't.
I mean, the Stanford Experiment is completely irrelevant anyway, the real world has proven a million times that ordinary humans are capable of doing terrible things without much need of persuasion. Humans naturally form groups that exclude people who think differently, bow down to peer pressure and shift accountability to the higher ups. That's all you need to create an 'evil human', someone who lets the group think for him and who doesn't take accountability for his own individual actions.
The "Lord of the Flies" novel struck many people as truth. However, in 2 REAL situations the kids (well, both groups teenagers) did just fine. One group built a gym to stay in shape.
Oof…that answer re: Zimbardo and the Stanford Prison Experiment was definitely a swing and a miss, if for no other reason than it’s pretty clear Zimbardo was doing exactly what Gladwell was railing against in another answer: starting with a conclusion and seeking the data that supported it. He set pretty specific incentives around the experiment both to encourage the students playing guards to act out cruelty towards those playing prisoners as well as manipulated the students playing prisoners to stick with the experiment even as they began registering complaints about their treatment. Would the result have been different if he’d created incentives around treating the prisoners with kindness or redesigned the experiment once students started protesting? We’ll never know. Was the Stanford Prison Experiment fake? No, definitely not. Did it produce anything scientifically useful or even valid? Also no.
Gladwell was actually spot on in re the prison experiment. Zimbardo was pretty specific about what he was trying to ask: will 'normal' people act cruelly if put into situations where they are expected to act cruelly -- so the instructions were exactly part of the study as designed. And many of the 'normal' people went to acting cruelly pretty fast -- in fact faster and more cruelly than Z expected. I have no idea why you think changing the instructions to act less cruelly would be anything that Zimbardo would want to do -- it makes no sense given his research question. (Z was trying to refute the then common idea that there was something specific about Germans or German culture that made them be crueler to prisoners than other peoples - he showed that good old normal Americans will be cruel if put into those kinds of situations.) It was not a case of confirmation bias, which is what you seem to be arguing / accusing. Some 'guards' refused to be cruel -- and he reported that. If he had not reported (or even noticed) the refusals, only the cruel ones, that would have been a kind of confirmation bias. But Z was actually shocked at how few people refused to act cruelly to others. There was no confirmation bias happening here. [the issues surrounding the ethics are another thing -- it was Zimbardo's study, among others, that led universities to start insisting on ethical reviews before studies with human subjects were conducted.]
The first time you're trying to find out something online and it is simply NOT there can be quite the experience. I remember my mother talking about a children's rhyme she learned in school that she remembered three verses of. Couldn't find anything even remotely close online to a single one of them.
Gladwell seems unfamiliar with the accusation that the Stanford Prison Experiment was faked, that has been substantially documented. The prison guards were encouraged to act a certain way, and the prisoners were faking their distress as well. Gladwell just assumes the questioner is some crazy person rather than thinking maybe he's missing something and should look into it.
To put it shortly, Gladwell is just a hack. Self-help for white collar workers who think they're too good for self help. A dumb guy who thinks he's smart for dumb guys who think they're smart.
His 10000 hour rule has also been discredited (repeatedly failed to be replicated). He is not a researcher. He is a good writer who tasks a team of assistants to help him cherry pick evidence supporting profitable just-so stories.
If an interviewer asked me to show him my laptop...well, a) they're not going to get much because I wouldn't have carried one into an interview to begin with, but b) I'd probably choose to end the interview on the spot. It's fine for a hiring manager to ask what I like to do in my free time. It is not okay for them to barge into that free time to take a look at what I'm doing unless that thing is a public performance of some sort.
What kind of interview do you think he's talking about? I wouldn't show my screen to a stranger either. But when someone is interested in what I'm working on I don't mind telling what I'm researching right now. (Or when someone just wants to know what I'm interested in.) I probably wouldn't even mind sharing one browser window, since I have not only several tabs but also several windows open, one for each topic. I could just hide the windows I don't want to talk about. :D
A meta-analysis of the research Gladwell used to create the 10,000-hour rule showed that they overestimated the impact of practice. Practice helps but it doesn't turn good practitioners into great ones.
Great content! Maybe the best I have ever seen Malcolm Gladwell. Tan, put together, relaxed, poignant; Wired, have you recreated My favorite author? Your vid should sell 100K books. Well done Wired!
The library question is extremely concerning. However, the response to the library question was great! Librarians are such a great resource for knowledge. If you are unaware, search the qualifications for a librarian. Cool video!
a ridiculously sad aspect of disability was not being able to library in person. i used to get lost in card catalogs and shelves. i worked at library of congress and folger shakespeare library
I love this guy. Great books, great podcasts, I highly recommend them. I don’t always agree with his takes, but theres value in hearing his perspective on things.
I think the biggest predictor of success is Discipline. More like constant discipline. The more disciplined you are the more success is attracted to you and easily comes in to your life. Tho it’s not easy lol. We’ve all procrastinated or got lazy at some point of our life. Discipline there is no breaks just get it done.
although I imagine I'm still falling victim to the algorithm, ultimately, but whenever I come up with a hypothesis I'm curious about, I ALWAYS try to enter only the key points of my hypothesis into Google, avoiding words that belie what I'm thinking. ie "effects of x on y" as opposed to "does x make y better"
It was an average of 10,000 hours to be an expert. Some people had more than 10,000. Some had less. It's by no means a rule. Anders Ericsson, the researcher Gladwell cites in that chapter, disagrees with the 10,000 hour rule.
I once had to write a paper on the 10,000 hour rule. I argued against it stating my favorite NBA player didn't start playing basketball until high school. (I don't think he was my only example, as one anecdotal piece of evidence isn't all you need to craft a well designed argument). My teacher stated basketball wasn't something that should be taken into consideration, as you were specifically referring to more mental skills, piano, chess, etc. Thank you for validating my example.
I kinda don’t mind people not using the library or their brains to do research. It leaves more golden nuggets for me to trip over. As for confirmation bias, I’ve learned the hard way I’d rather be correct than right.
These were really good answers, thank you! The only problem I have is with 10,000-hour rule: It's not that 10,000 hour rule is "not true" per se, it is utterly a useless bit of information. Any person who became an expert will have to pass the 10,000 hour mark at one point in their lives - may it be before or after they are called an "expert". This is not an objective measure. They also pass 12,000 hours. Also 15,000 hours. The "rule" could have been any of these, probably even 7,000 hours or 9,000 hours. I find it more like Mr. Beast's recommendation for video titles: "Don't write 'I paid $5,000 to a person' in your title; if you can, do 'I paid $10,000 to a person'. Because 10,000 is a better number than 5,000." So I believe Gladwell basically did that. Any other number would not be as catchy. Also, he admits in his own book that family, culture, friendships, IQ, luck, fortune, etc. are all critical for success. Putting in an effort of 10,000 hours to anything will probably make you "really good" at anything. But how does this information help in any way? It's not a hard set rule, nor does it mean much.
It’s more of a benchmark. Like, if people aren’t already calling you an expert by the time you’ve put 10,000 hours in, you can start calling yourself an expert by that point. I think it’s a good, objective baseline. Remember, you don’t have to be smart to be an expert, and you don’t have to be an expert to be smart.
As someone who never had more than five tabs open, and usually only has that many if I'm stuck between buying one of three products or something... I'd hate to have to show that in an interview 😂 most of the time I'd be a mystery for having nothing open, but then I'd just look materialistic the one time I did have a lot up
McDonald's actually added artificial beef flavoring to their Chicken McNuggets after they switched to vegetable oil, because it changed the taste of them so much
John Lott never argued more guns less crime. He argued more guns being carried by law abiding citizens less crime. Now, whether THAT pans out or not is the place to start the debate. I don't know the answer, but his position shouldn't be mischaracterized.
George Kelling may have done research on this topic, but the idea was around long before him. It was the basis of what William Wilberforce called his "reformation of manners" back in the early 1800s.
"Boredom is an intermediate stage. It's a kind of plateau you get on when you scratch the surface." Beautiful quote. I will take that wisdom with me.
Same.
Also a bit rich for someone who never wrote a dissertation and has never endured the stress of being a PhD student.
@@Ogurets123 it applies to more things than just phds moron
@@Ogurets123 my thoughts precisely!!!
Depends on what you're doing. There's also ways to make information fun. One of my favorite channels on RUclips called Oversimplified makes learning history fun.
The library is one of the few places we go to in the modern day where we aren't expected to spend money. It's also an incredible resource for so many people and for so many reasons.
You haven't seen my fines.
Librarians are also trained to Select quality materials. The Internet will take any trash.
And Google's "Fact checkers" are all journalists! Not a librarian in sight!
Retired librarian
P.S. A great example of analyzing research is the "Dr. John Campbell" channel on Covid. PhD in nursing education.
the only place left we can explore without any external influences directing us.
@@veramae4098 Debunk the funk with Dr Wilson has an excellent video on him
Also the library is more than just books. Audiobooks, tv shows, movies, video games, and a lot of free services, all without ads. Find me another LEGAL service that provides those services for a similar price.
Why do I always come thinking "oh, this is gonna be boring" and end up loving every episode?? One of my favorite channels out there.
Because you are at the intermediate level but keep on going
@@simeonlaplace6495 Little snotty, aren't you? Presumptuous, too.
Why would you think Malcolm Gladwell would be boring??? His podcast is great
A library is the foundation of a society in which the core element of that society's education and wisdom is soley embedded.
Okay boomer.
Reminder to fellow smooth brains like me: many major libraries in your city provides both e-book AND audio books.
As Bill Burr says, "until you've read it in the non-fiction section of the library, don't talk to me about your Internet bullsh%^!"
Importantly, they are also one of the few heated places left in society where you don't have to pay to be there.
A majority of people being able to read is only a few hundreds of years old.
I really like how Gladwell prefaces every answer by explaining the question to establish context and get his audience to a more level playing field. Clearly a great storyteller and teacher at heart.
Also serendipitous search is why I love going to small second hand bookstores.
That statement about boredom was really insightful. I'm going to lock that in my brain forever
Which minute bro?
@@muhreskih3219 9:30
The best part is…even though there are some totally random questions like “why fries taste better as a child” or “is country music sad”, Malcolm just straight up has a serious explanation to answer every single one of those questions.
Well it helps they are often references things he has already talked about on his podcast or in his books.
The fries thing though even though interesting he’s actually wrong about the health side of it
Wired producers would have selected those questions because they linked back to his podcast/book.
As someone who adores libraries and is frequently frustrated by a lack of archival evidence/special collections online, this made me deeply happy.
Can you give me specific scenerios where you found something in a library that you were looking for that you couldn't find online?
1:00 One thing I was taught when I took a term of technical writing (don't ever do that to yourself) was to use the sources linked to Wikipedia as citations. So Wikipedia gives you the broad overview, but any Wikipedia article that can support its own weight will have plenty of linked pages to use as primary sources.
Ya, I figured this out on my own. It gave you dozens of specific sources you can use in your research, instantly.
I also recommend this strategy when you find a really good paper on your topic. Use their reference lists! I especially like using textbook chapters for this. Find the true experts others are citing and see what THEY are saying.
Mr Gladwell throwing shade at any opportunity he had, what a legend.
"Who's going to a library?" Is the most privileged thing I've ever heard. If that person got off Twitter and actually went to a library, they would find a haven for parents who need something fun to do with toddlers in the winter, the underprivileged attending employment workshops and students who don't have a safe space to study.
She's probably a millennial
Me as a uni student, spending most of my time in the library because it's quiet and I don't have to pay unaffordable (UK) amounts for heating there
If you went to a library you'd know the word you're looking for is ignorant, not privileged. Privelege does not go hand in hand with not understanding something, but ignorance does as it is a lack of information or knowledge. Someone not priveleged can be ignorant but someone ignorant is not inherently priveleged.
@@d1vin1ty you're correct that they don't always go hand in hand but incorrect since this is both
2 things to the library thing: A lot of libraries do digitalise their content, including most university libraries I am aware of. Vienna has an incredibly old library that is one of the largest in the world which is (still in the process of) digitalising their whole collection. For me, libraries are good as a place to study. That is, at least for university libraries, one of their main functions
"Everything is interesting if you dig deep enough" aka effort really. Good stuff!
10,000 WITH CONSTANT FEEDBACK! The feedback is EXTREMELY important for this rule. If you spent 10,000 hours drawing a circle until it was the best possible circle you've ever seen, if you have no feedback, no one was there to tell you you were drawing a triangle the whole time.
@@TreeSymphony52 Results-oriented thinking is very, very bad and there’s a ton of research on the subject. That point guard needs constant coaching to continue to be successful.
@@Sweet00thtkc no. The success or failure of the activity plus reflection is enough.
@@Tarotainment Unfortunately, there are mountains of evidence that prove otherwise. The scientific community is pretty uniform on this.
By by b by
This! The guy who wrote the study Gladwell references, K. Anders Ericsson, say it needs to be 'deliberate practice' guided by someone better who can push you out of your comfort zone and give you feedback. Freakonomics has a great episode called 'How to Become Great at Just About Anything' that really demonstrates how it works by following a woman who decided to become a singer.
The prefix in research gives it the meaning "to search again", so if you do it just once you're doing it wrong.
"Being skeptical is...exhausting" - Agreed
Malcolm has it in one. Having parents who can buy, encourage, and steer a child toward resources, activities, and information that can help them expand on the information they get in school results in students much better prepared and ready for the complexities of advanced study and the world.
Such a beautiful mind and authentic soul. He's definitely near the top of my list of people I'd choose to have coffee with if I could choose anyone on the planet.
"The biggest determination of success is having rich parents." Couldn't be more true. I have personally seen both sides. Smart and not so smart with rich or poor parents. Often, having access to more resources is always more beneficial no matter how you are intellectually. Regardless of your skills, attitude and situation in life, better financial stability is always the deciding factor to reaching your aspirations a.k.a. being successful. This just means, hopefully your ancestors have been gradually improving their financial stability and you got a better deal in life now compared to others.
no i think having immigrants as parents is a big determination of success. looka t all the succesful koreans who came to the us with nothing , they own businesses and their children are often very successful. you have plenty of kids of rich parents who are fuckups, drug addicts , losers etc.
The biggest determinations I think comes down to desire, chance, and opportunity. Money can’t help if your life will come to an early end due to unforeseen incurable disease.
Part of the problem with Google, that I wish he mentioned more explicitly, is that it's algorithm gives you results that it thinks you want. Which means, for instance,if you are in a certain political party, it will give you results that agree with your views.
Yes, search engines have built-in confirmation bias in their algorithm.
Agree!
Wow, i didn't know this
When you want to use Google, it should be Google Scholar anyway. Then read the articles and look also into the sources they cite.
They give you the results they want you to see and suppress results they don't.
The way he answered the ghost question without being condescending was very impressive, being someone who doesnt believe in ghosts i myself found in my head it would be hard for me to do something like that, so i found that impressive.
What a fascinating person! Really insightful on a subject most people never touch on, I hope you're able to do more with this gentleman in the future!
His books are great and just as interesting!
Tabs - I open a lot and try to close them whenever I can. Some are recipes for cooking or baking, others are musical training clips, others are news, health, and how to clips. Tabs are a smorgasbord of ideas you might have interest with and you constantly need to prune them to manage your time.
When I was young I was told that people have natural talent and if you didn't get good quickly than you never will. It's embarrassing the number of things I started and quit.
AVID library supporter/frequenter here, I love it so much 💜
Gladwell will always be a rockstar. Zombardo's experiment wasn't faked - just incredibly unethical and extremely poorly planned haha. But evocative nonetheless. I've also come to not like how Gladwell describes the 10,000 hour rule. The original research wasn't just that at the end of 10,000 hours, you're an expert, but that people who were experts had typically put in at least 10,000 hours in deliberate practice. Actually meaningfully getting better at your craft. It's a reminder to be active and purposeful in improvement, rather than expect much of passive osmosis on the job. Gladwell knows that, of course, but lots of people who hear it explained don't (and some even think something magical happens at 10k+1).
Yes, experts spend 10,000 hours doing something. BUT it is wrong to assume that if YOU do 10,000 hours you will become an expert.
It doesn’t meaning being an expert at doing the thing. It’s being an expert on the thing itself. Meaning you won’t be an NBA player for playing 10 years straight but you’ll definitely know what makes someone good and how!
Yeah he said if you became expert you will need min 10k hours, some ppl not expert even have 10k hours, because in some point ppl stop learning or evolving
@@barret_wallace no one said you become a master after you get a degree. A degree is just a certificate.
I like that he didn't crap on the ghost story question. Things aren't false just because the evidence is weak and they aren't investigated in effective ways. They're just not known to be true. An important middle ground.
agreed!
DARPA - The branch of military that does research has/ does spend millions of dollars on paranormal research. There might be something to be said about that.
Evidence is weak?? Here is a thought- there is zero evidence. Any educated scientist/investigator will tell you that “eyewitness testimony “ is absolutely zero evidence.
Scientifically speaking. But colloquially speaking, they're false. There have been ample time, resources and stakes but no results. Given that a research topic like this would be extremely lucrative and world-changing, having nothing of substance after decades of research means it is so likely to be false that we can call it false.
While technically the chance that I am a robot shark with laser arms is non-zero, in everyday language it is so unlikely that the statement is considered false.
Exacerbated by the existence of ghosts in the natural world being unfalsifiable, the existence of ghosts as supernatural entities being by definition not subject to the scientific method and the non-existence of ghosts not being falsified in spite of absurd incentives.
I like that he doesn't dismiss the subject of ghost research because the evidence is mostly anecdotal, but rather tells them to go out and interview a lot of people so they can compile that information
The look in his eyes when he said “being skeptical is exhausting.” I felt that. 5:21
I read blink and outliers in early high school. It really changed the way I see the world.
"I'd rather be dumb than look dumb." - a smart person
"I'm dumb" - Malcolm Gladwell
Looking dumb doesn't get you endorsement money.
Really? Because being dumb is really not fun for me. :(
I bet he does a hella'va Christopher Walken impression.
Or Lindsay Buckingham
I Love this !!!! Great concept!
When he said, "who's helping you when you're messing around on Google at 2 am", I felt that
Love Malcolm’s explanations
woah for some reason this is my favorite wired support. it feels like a trustable source about the truths about life, just because he seems like a very skeptical person.
I love this man
The more golf you play, the worse your company is doing 😂
I love Malcolm Galdwell. He made a few mistakes writing about Anders Ericsson's investigation and paper about 10,000 Hours. But I followed it (Starting as soon as Outliers was published.) I also read Ericsson's paper, which is online and easy to follow. I think Gladwell makes mistakes here. 10,000 hours won't make you an 'expert,' it will make you world class . The music school example was 2000 hours of practice (I don't remember the exact numbers) and you can teach music to kids, 6000 hours you can get a job in an orchestra, but 10,000 hours of deliberate focused practices can make you a soloist.
But this is what I love about Malcolm Gladwell, he doesn't have to be right he just has to be engaging and exciting and interesting and fun and make ideas start popping in our heads.
In the community of Echo Park we started painting out gang graffiti in the late 1980s. The gang kids painted even more. They were kicking out butts. No matter what we did they were winning. (Winning wasn't just unsightly, it led to shootings between the gangs.) Then one day our Senior Lead Officer Joe Writer told us, "The armed robbery rate went to zero last month!" That's great, who got arrested? "That's the thing. No one. Talking with my Captain (Keith Bushy) we think it might be those beige squares you guys are painting."
None of us know about Broken Windows. But we kept it up. We also tried anything we could think of, planting trees, sponsoring trash cans.... Things kept getting better. At one point the older gang guys were working with us. Then Joe sent us to a police training at USC. The cops in the room all grumbled, 'Why are there civilians here?" We didn't know. Joe sent us. Then the instructor started talking about Broken Windows. We all thought, Hey, wait a minute. We invented this? I was going to write a book. Apparently we weren't the only ones to figure this out. Joe laughed. He just wanted our minds to be blown as his was at that training.
Here's where the problem in this lies. In New York City they started giving all the credit to Mayor Guiliani for 'cracking down on crime.' In the L.A. Times the third or fourth Northeasst Captain after Bushy said, "When the yuppies moved in, they started fixing up the ...." No! that wasn't what happened! So if you don't understand, don't want to understand, how can you learn and repeat a process? Human nature doesn't change... but when it does, when people can stop applying their prejudices, that's when progress is made.
Here's a ghost story. My wife and I got lost in the San Gabriel Mountains, had to spend the night and walk out in the morning. On the way to getting lost I met a very old man with piercing blue eyes who just started talking about being lost in a nearby canyon on a moonless night. (I knew that night would also be moonless.) Well that happened to us. we spent the night up there. When I went back to retrieve my bicycle I told the ranger. what had happened. He said, "That sounds like old Jimmy, but he died a few years ago. I wonder who it was." I said, "Stop right there. It's now a ghost story." I'm sure I could eventually find out who that was....but why bother? It's more fun as a ghost story.
10,000 isn't ten years?
If you did it for 40 hours a week like a full time job it would equate to 4.8 years
I like the question about the library. I understand why that person asked that question. I'm one of the people that go often. They're quiet; there's a lot you can learn at a library that's if you open a book.
Zimbardo interfered with the Stanford Prison experiment, he told them to do what they did because they weren't doing anything interesting. At least that's what the book Humankind by Rutger Bregman details as part of his exploration into why we think we are bad people when we kind of aren't.
Exactly. Zimbardo manipulated the circumstances and interfered with the study to get the results he wanted.
I mean, the Stanford Experiment is completely irrelevant anyway, the real world has proven a million times that ordinary humans are capable of doing terrible things without much need of persuasion.
Humans naturally form groups that exclude people who think differently, bow down to peer pressure and shift accountability to the higher ups. That's all you need to create an 'evil human', someone who lets the group think for him and who doesn't take accountability for his own individual actions.
@@oyuyuy That's not at all what the Stanford Experiment claims to show though.
The "Lord of the Flies" novel struck many people as truth.
However, in 2 REAL situations the kids (well, both groups teenagers) did just fine.
One group built a gym to stay in shape.
I can’t say enough how much I enjoy the witty and serious answers (I’m only halfway through the video haha). Gladwell is so intriguing ❤
I love his personality omg 😂❤
Really? You must be in middle management and want your employees to come back to the office.
OMMGGG!! 😅😅😅😅😅😍😍🥵
Malcolm Gladwell is the ChatGPT of people. Authoritative, decisive answers that are almost certainly wrong if they require any level of judgement.
Ha ha, maybe they could use only Gladwell to train ChatGPT (will save lot of resources) or vice versa.
My favorite author!!!!
Reference librarians are the most amazing and valuable people; make friends with one!
Oof…that answer re: Zimbardo and the Stanford Prison Experiment was definitely a swing and a miss, if for no other reason than it’s pretty clear Zimbardo was doing exactly what Gladwell was railing against in another answer: starting with a conclusion and seeking the data that supported it. He set pretty specific incentives around the experiment both to encourage the students playing guards to act out cruelty towards those playing prisoners as well as manipulated the students playing prisoners to stick with the experiment even as they began registering complaints about their treatment. Would the result have been different if he’d created incentives around treating the prisoners with kindness or redesigned the experiment once students started protesting? We’ll never know.
Was the Stanford Prison Experiment fake? No, definitely not. Did it produce anything scientifically useful or even valid? Also no.
Starting with the conclusion and finding data to support your argument is pseudoscience!
Gladwell was actually spot on in re the prison experiment. Zimbardo was pretty specific about what he was trying to ask: will 'normal' people act cruelly if put into situations where they are expected to act cruelly -- so the instructions were exactly part of the study as designed. And many of the 'normal' people went to acting cruelly pretty fast -- in fact faster and more cruelly than Z expected. I have no idea why you think changing the instructions to act less cruelly would be anything that Zimbardo would want to do -- it makes no sense given his research question. (Z was trying to refute the then common idea that there was something specific about Germans or German culture that made them be crueler to prisoners than other peoples - he showed that good old normal Americans will be cruel if put into those kinds of situations.)
It was not a case of confirmation bias, which is what you seem to be arguing / accusing. Some 'guards' refused to be cruel -- and he reported that. If he had not reported (or even noticed) the refusals, only the cruel ones, that would have been a kind of confirmation bias. But Z was actually shocked at how few people refused to act cruelly to others. There was no confirmation bias happening here.
[the issues surrounding the ethics are another thing -- it was Zimbardo's study, among others, that led universities to start insisting on ethical reviews before studies with human subjects were conducted.]
"The other great thing about libraries is librarians." AMEN!
Great interview Wired team! Malcolm Gladwell is so fascinating.
Purrrr mike gladwell
The first time you're trying to find out something online and it is simply NOT there can be quite the experience. I remember my mother talking about a children's rhyme she learned in school that she remembered three verses of. Couldn't find anything even remotely close online to a single one of them.
This interview inspired me to 'scratch the surface' more with research.
Gladwell seems unfamiliar with the accusation that the Stanford Prison Experiment was faked, that has been substantially documented. The prison guards were encouraged to act a certain way, and the prisoners were faking their distress as well. Gladwell just assumes the questioner is some crazy person rather than thinking maybe he's missing something and should look into it.
he is known for cherry-picking and getting things wrong. it's actually hilarious that Wired booked him for this.
To put it shortly, Gladwell is just a hack. Self-help for white collar workers who think they're too good for self help. A dumb guy who thinks he's smart for dumb guys who think they're smart.
@@chriss6053 he works for Conde Nast (New Yorker) so this could be cross promotional and they should disclose it
His 10000 hour rule has also been discredited (repeatedly failed to be replicated). He is not a researcher. He is a good writer who tasks a team of assistants to help him cherry pick evidence supporting profitable just-so stories.
Anti elite snark in these replies.
Libraries are also just nice, quiet, and increasingly beautiful spaces - especially in wealthy areas.
Anywhere you are SIMONE, is a beautiful space..✨
That answer about boredom fully blew my mind. Amazingly insightful.
Wow this one was amazing thanks guys
If an interviewer asked me to show him my laptop...well, a) they're not going to get much because I wouldn't have carried one into an interview to begin with, but b) I'd probably choose to end the interview on the spot. It's fine for a hiring manager to ask what I like to do in my free time. It is not okay for them to barge into that free time to take a look at what I'm doing unless that thing is a public performance of some sort.
What kind of interview do you think he's talking about?
I wouldn't show my screen to a stranger either. But when someone is interested in what I'm working on I don't mind telling what I'm researching right now. (Or when someone just wants to know what I'm interested in.) I probably wouldn't even mind sharing one browser window, since I have not only several tabs but also several windows open, one for each topic. I could just hide the windows I don't want to talk about. :D
I absolutely loved this
Hey this is that guy who was embarrassed by Douglas Murray 😂😂😂
One of my favorite authors of all time. Awesome video
Me: why did Darth Vader hit the griddy in Fortnite?
Malcolm: Funny you should ask, I actually did a podcast about that
A meta-analysis of the research Gladwell used to create the 10,000-hour rule showed that they overestimated the impact of practice. Practice helps but it doesn't turn good practitioners into great ones.
Great content! Maybe the best I have ever seen Malcolm Gladwell. Tan, put together, relaxed, poignant; Wired, have you recreated My favorite author? Your vid should sell 100K books. Well done Wired!
Casey Affleck! That who his mannerisms remind me of. Actually, if Casey would play a character based on Malcolm Gladwell that would be pretty cool
The library question is extremely concerning. However, the response to the library question was great! Librarians are such a great resource for knowledge. If you are unaware, search the qualifications for a librarian. Cool video!
How can the validity of libraries be questioned…
a ridiculously sad aspect of disability was not being able to library in person. i used to get lost in card catalogs and shelves. i worked at library of congress and folger shakespeare library
watching this with 11 youtube tabs open queued lol.
I love this guy. Great books, great podcasts, I highly recommend them. I don’t always agree with his takes, but theres value in hearing his perspective on things.
i use his books for firewood.
Why is this guy giving me Christopher walken crossed with gilbert gottfried 😂❤
I think the biggest predictor of success is Discipline. More like constant discipline. The more disciplined you are the more success is attracted to you and easily comes in to your life. Tho it’s not easy lol. We’ve all procrastinated or got lazy at some point of our life. Discipline there is no breaks just get it done.
If an interviewer asked to see my internet browser, I’d get up and leave. Imagine working for an employer with zero regard for personal privacy.
although I imagine I'm still falling victim to the algorithm, ultimately, but whenever I come up with a hypothesis I'm curious about, I ALWAYS try to enter only the key points of my hypothesis into Google, avoiding words that belie what I'm thinking. ie "effects of x on y" as opposed to "does x make y better"
Library is a very magical place to be.... I love it unfortunately I stopped going to one after school and man I miss the place.
I love Malcolm. I love Libraries!
I had to wikipedia Malcolm Gladwell.
Really great episode
It was an average of 10,000 hours to be an expert. Some people had more than 10,000. Some had less. It's by no means a rule. Anders Ericsson, the researcher Gladwell cites in that chapter, disagrees with the 10,000 hour rule.
love listening to Malcolm common sense is overwhelming....
I once had to write a paper on the 10,000 hour rule. I argued against it stating my favorite NBA player didn't start playing basketball until high school. (I don't think he was my only example, as one anecdotal piece of evidence isn't all you need to craft a well designed argument). My teacher stated basketball wasn't something that should be taken into consideration, as you were specifically referring to more mental skills, piano, chess, etc. Thank you for validating my example.
I kinda don’t mind people not using the library or their brains to do research. It leaves more golden nuggets for me to trip over.
As for confirmation bias, I’ve learned the hard way I’d rather be correct than right.
Thank you.
I can think of at least one highly searched question not on that list...✈️🏖️
Malcom Gladwell always sounds smart.
These were really good answers, thank you! The only problem I have is with 10,000-hour rule: It's not that 10,000 hour rule is "not true" per se, it is utterly a useless bit of information. Any person who became an expert will have to pass the 10,000 hour mark at one point in their lives - may it be before or after they are called an "expert". This is not an objective measure. They also pass 12,000 hours. Also 15,000 hours. The "rule" could have been any of these, probably even 7,000 hours or 9,000 hours. I find it more like Mr. Beast's recommendation for video titles: "Don't write 'I paid $5,000 to a person' in your title; if you can, do 'I paid $10,000 to a person'. Because 10,000 is a better number than 5,000." So I believe Gladwell basically did that. Any other number would not be as catchy. Also, he admits in his own book that family, culture, friendships, IQ, luck, fortune, etc. are all critical for success. Putting in an effort of 10,000 hours to anything will probably make you "really good" at anything. But how does this information help in any way? It's not a hard set rule, nor does it mean much.
It’s more of a benchmark. Like, if people aren’t already calling you an expert by the time you’ve put 10,000 hours in, you can start calling yourself an expert by that point. I think it’s a good, objective baseline. Remember, you don’t have to be smart to be an expert, and you don’t have to be an expert to be smart.
Unless you've attempted at least 5000 hours of true directed study, you really don't know what your talking about. I'm at 6000 hours in my study...
Malcom Gladwell, everytime somebody is selectively finding data to support their conclusion: "SEE! Confirmation bias!"
Takes a tremendous amount of time, especially counting challenges included.
i love how he specifies exactly 42 tabs implying it may be something he has experienced first hand
As someone who never had more than five tabs open, and usually only has that many if I'm stuck between buying one of three products or something... I'd hate to have to show that in an interview 😂 most of the time I'd be a mystery for having nothing open, but then I'd just look materialistic the one time I did have a lot up
McDonald's actually added artificial beef flavoring to their Chicken McNuggets after they switched to vegetable oil, because it changed the taste of them so much
What's more interesting than 42 P-n tabs 💀
43?
42 TvTrope tabs.
I am writing a manuscript and this suddenly came into my youtube recommendation
I want this guy back!
Tabs impart the illusion of multitasking. I would revert back to sequential reading. Much more coherent thinking.
I wish Malcolm had had some children. I think they would have been fascinating people and contributed much to the world.
As a Sociology major dropout, I am fascinated by this man
Not me writing my thesis rn and having 37 tabs open on both chrome and edge🤣
John Lott never argued more guns less crime. He argued more guns being carried by law abiding citizens less crime. Now, whether THAT pans out or not is the place to start the debate. I don't know the answer, but his position shouldn't be mischaracterized.
George Kelling may have done research on this topic, but the idea was around long before him. It was the basis of what William Wilberforce called his "reformation of manners" back in the early 1800s.