Depends on what you're doing. There's also ways to make information fun. One of my favorite channels on TH-cam called Oversimplified makes learning history fun.
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.
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.
"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
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.
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.
@@Browne7100 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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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).
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.
The Wilt Chamberlain thing isn't so cut and dry, there's more to it. That underhand shot is considered a circus shot, its like the weird baseball and football plays that guys wouldn't even allow in a pick-up game in their backyard. There is a level of respect that comes with the game, "We're all shooting it the same way" kind of thing...
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.
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.]
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
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.
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.
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.
The 10,000 hour rule has long since been thoroughly debunked and was never based on solid scientific research anyway, as Gladwell isn't a scientist, he's a journalist. He based this rule on a single study of violin players and even the author of that study has said that Gladwell greatly misrepresented the study's conclusions. We also know now that genetics (aka talent) and the age at which you start learning any given skill are probably much more important in determining your level of ability than reaching some arbitrary number of practiced hours. I know many people don't like to hear this as it isn't "inspirational", but no, not everybody can become an expert at anything if they just practice enough.
@@myztik5716 But the latter is how many people interpret this "rule". And, as already pointed out, the first statement also isn't supported by science.
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.
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.
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"
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
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 that being skeptical is not difficult. I would say that reducing your bias while researching a topic you are skeptical about is significantly more difficult.
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.
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.
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
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
"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 TH-cam called Oversimplified makes learning history fun.
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
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
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.
As someone who adores libraries and is frequently frustrated by a lack of archival evidence/special collections online, this made me deeply happy.
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.
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.
"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
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.
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.
@@Browne7100 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.
"Everything is interesting if you dig deep enough" aka effort really. Good stuff!
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 prefix in research gives it the meaning "to search again", so if you do it just once you're doing it wrong.
Mr Gladwell throwing shade at any opportunity he had, what a legend.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
I bet he does a hella'va Christopher Walken impression.
Or Lindsay Buckingham
Malcolm, you’re guilty of half of the things you claim other biased researchers do
"Being skeptical is...exhausting" - Agreed
AVID library supporter/frequenter here, I love it so much 💜
"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. :(
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
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.
Love Malcolm’s explanations
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).
When he said, "who's helping you when you're messing around on Google at 2 am", I felt that
Reference librarians are the most amazing and valuable people; make friends with one!
I read blink and outliers in early high school. It really changed the way I see the world.
I Love this !!!! Great concept!
Purrrr mike gladwell
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.
The more golf you play, the worse your company is doing 😂
"The other great thing about libraries is librarians." AMEN!
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
Libraries are also just nice, quiet, and increasingly beautiful spaces - especially in wealthy areas.
Anywhere you are SIMONE, is a beautiful space..✨
My favorite author!!!!
How can the validity of libraries be questioned…
Wow this one was amazing thanks guys
Me: why did Darth Vader hit the griddy in Fortnite?
Malcolm: Funny you should ask, I actually did a podcast about that
i use his books for firewood.
I absolutely loved this
The Wilt Chamberlain thing isn't so cut and dry, there's more to it. That underhand shot is considered a circus shot, its like the weird baseball and football plays that guys wouldn't even allow in a pick-up game in their backyard. There is a level of respect that comes with the game, "We're all shooting it the same way" kind of thing...
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.
I love his personality omg 😂❤
Really? You must be in middle management and want your employees to come back to the office.
OMMGGG!! 😅😅😅😅😅😍😍🥵
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.
Malcom Gladwell, everytime somebody is selectively finding data to support their conclusion: "SEE! Confirmation bias!"
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.]
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
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 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.
"Why do smart people do dumb things cause they don't want you to look stupid", that says a lot😢😢😢
Thank you.
Great interview Wired team! Malcolm Gladwell is so fascinating.
As a Sociology major dropout, I am fascinated by this man
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 had to wikipedia Malcolm Gladwell.
10 years? I clock in 3000 hours of gaming a year while having a full time job....where do you figure that math
That answer about boredom fully blew my mind. Amazingly insightful.
The 10,000 hour rule has long since been thoroughly debunked and was never based on solid scientific research anyway, as Gladwell isn't a scientist, he's a journalist. He based this rule on a single study of violin players and even the author of that study has said that Gladwell greatly misrepresented the study's conclusions. We also know now that genetics (aka talent) and the age at which you start learning any given skill are probably much more important in determining your level of ability than reaching some arbitrary number of practiced hours. I know many people don't like to hear this as it isn't "inspirational", but no, not everybody can become an expert at anything if they just practice enough.
"It takes roughly 10000 hours to get good at something" != "You can be good at anything after spending 10000 hours"
@@myztik5716 But the latter is how many people interpret this "rule". And, as already pointed out, the first statement also isn't supported by science.
Hey this is that guy who was embarrassed by Douglas Murray 😂😂😂
This interview inspired me to 'scratch the surface' more with research.
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...
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.
That's why the Beatles used very specific words. Lovely Rita, meter maid....
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"
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
10,000 hrs is 8 hrs a workday for 5 years (incl. 2 weeks of holidays). It is a Ph.D.
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 ❤
Some libraries contain books you will only get to read there because the book are too old and no one bothered to make a scanned copy.
Does bad research and never recants his errors.
Heck I just left the library. Spent 3 hours there...I was in heaven. The internet is no comparison...
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 that being skeptical is not difficult. I would say that reducing your bias while researching a topic you are skeptical about is significantly more difficult.
What's more interesting than 42 P-n tabs 💀
43?
42 TvTrope tabs.
"10,000 Hours and you'll be an expert at anything"- Uve Boll: Exists - Theory: Down the toilet.
How many here has opened 42 p*rn tabs, but only required 1 to finish?
I am embarrassed.
I had to like this comment.
Bruh
how could the biggest determining factor for "success" not be determination????
Why is this guy giving me Christopher walken crossed with gilbert gottfried 😂❤
Really great episode
watching this with 11 youtube tabs open queued lol.
Tabs impart the illusion of multitasking. I would revert back to sequential reading. Much more coherent thinking.
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.
love listening to Malcolm common sense is overwhelming....
I wish Malcolm had had some children. I think they would have been fascinating people and contributed much to the world.
'Research questions' could you have picked a topic any more ambiguous?
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.
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
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
Not 2 minutes in and he's in zero-chill smackdown mode. Love this dude already
Thank you 🙏
Malcom Gladwell always sounds smart.
Surely the greater the amount of research, the greater the degree of confirmation bias, and the greater the inaccuracy of one's conclusions.
Wait, you can reply to your own comment?
Takes a tremendous amount of time, especially counting challenges included.
👍for libraries!📖
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.