Your criticism of Gladwell is oddly unspecific given the nature of your criticism. You fail to state what exactly you criticize in his 10,000 hour statement. W

Your criticism of Gladwell is oddly unspecific given the nature of your criticism. You fail to state what exactly you criticize in his 10,000 hour statement. When I read the kind of criticism you seem to be referring to, like this one: http://www.businessinsider.com/new-study-destroys-malcolm-gladwells-10000-rule-2014-7?IR=T http://www.businessinsider.com/new-study-destroys-malcolm-gl... I notice that the examples are silly: They equate "success" with "mastery". For example, they write > Then there's a band like the Sex Pistols, who took the world by storm even though Sid Vicious could barely play his bass. So they themselves say he "could barely play his bass"! How does that refute the mastery theory? The Richard Branson example is about "success" and not "mastery" too - I bet Richard DID have "10,000 hours" of business practice. Not that Gladwell made any specific predictions either AFAIR. I wish the people criticizing his work would made an example of how to be better - but it seems the criticism itself sets new low points in quality. "What Malcolm Gladwell REALLY Said About The 10,000 Hour Rule": http://problogservice.com/2012/03/15/what-malcolm-gladwell-really-said-about-the-10000-hour-rule/ http://problogservice.com/2012/03/15/what-malcolm-gladwell-r... > “Malcolm Gladwell said you have to have 10000 hours in a subject to be an expert,” they will often state. The problem is, they’re repeating a misquote from someone else who has never read the book. Also note how Gladwell quotes scientists - so any criticism should be directed at those: > “The emerging picture from such studies is that ten thousand hours of practice is required to achieve the level of mastery associated with being a world-class expert—in anything,” writes the neurologist Daniel Levitin. — p. 40