The issue is that Malcolm Gladwell wanted a catchy number/title, and 10,000 hours happened to be one which caught his (and admittedly even my own) fancy. The bo

The issue is that Malcolm Gladwell wanted a catchy number/title, and 10,000 hours happened to be one which caught his (and admittedly even my own) fancy. The book "Outliers" does not try to delve into the places where the 10,000 rule doesn't work. And more importantly, if you read the literature, you'll find that there's a great deal of dependence on the kind of practice you do. Merely performing mindless repetition isn't going to help at all. You require a certain kind of focussed practice to get the benefits of the 10,000 hours rule Gladwell extols. The book "Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise" goes in depth about the fallacies in Galdwell's book. One of the authors of that book is the guy whose research formed the basis of Gladwell's own book. I would recommend you read that in order to understand where Gladwell misleads. In summary, if what you want from a book is pseudo-scientific reasoning for increasing practice time, Malcolm Gladwell is your man. If his words motivate you to practice harder, go ahead and read him. However, if you want scientific reasoning behind why practicing works and how to extract the most out of it, you'd best look elsewhere. The statement "Excellence requires 10,000 hours of deliberate practice" is itself untrue. This varies wildly with the kind of practice you do, the kind of feedback you get, and the field in which you wish to gain excellence. Oversimplification, as Gladwell does, is an easy way to make yourself a target of accusations of quackery. The statement that "Excellence requires many hours of deliberate practice, and you'd better practice things the correct way for your practice routine to work for you" might be a better characterisation of the science as is currently understood.