I think you're correct and I still don't think you invalidate Gladwell's point. Remember Gladwell originally proposed his idea on what it takes to become a "gen

I think you're correct and I still don't think you invalidate Gladwell's point. Remember Gladwell originally proposed his idea on what it takes to become a "genius" to dispel the conventional notion of what it takes to become the Bill Gates's, Wayne Gretzkys, and Mozarts of the world. He's challenging the notion that these geniuses achieved their success by way of some innate talent in their fields. Whereas, he applies the ten thousand hours theory to show that the idea of some innate genius is a myth, but rather requires much work to achieve that level of success (not that profound). I think it's hard to argue with this point. Where you (and many other people including myself) find trouble in Gladwell's work is that it's too cursory and often overreaching. It's true that he's doesn't go into the specifics of various fields in defining the specific areas that each requires to achieve that genius level. But such a study would be extremely exhausting, if not impossible. It's also not where Gladwell sees his role; he's a pop scientist, not an academic. His job isn't to take academic studies and dig deeper. Quite the opposite. As a pop scientist, he takes academic research proposed in academic fields such as psychology, sociology, and anthropology and he extrapolates these ideas into popular culture to cater to a much broader audience. Taken in this context, I think you'll have a much different experience reading his work.