Ericsson's work is classic, but you have to realize A) it is primarily from the 80s and involved studying things like games or sports or trivial pursuits where

Ericsson's work is classic, but you have to realize A) it is primarily from the 80s and involved studying things like games or sports or trivial pursuits where expertise is more likely to be measured, and B) the author of the book described in this article is Ericsson himself - it's going to be a bit biased. Here is some more up to date research and information on his theories: This recent special issue of Intelligence critiques Ericsson's work: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01602896/45 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01602896/45 The 10,000 hour rule has been pretty refuted in my opinion. There are so many exceptions to the rule that it's not really a valid rule. In fact, one of the articles in that special issue is a meta-analysis that found no evidence for the 10,000 hour rule. Here's a summary: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/10000-hour-rule-not-real-180952410/?no-ist http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/10000-hour-rule-not...