I'm not a Gladwell fan, but that article presents a weak argument against a claim not even made. > The rule tells us, a mere 10,000 hours of dedicated practice

I'm not a Gladwell fan, but that article presents a weak argument against a claim not even made. > The rule tells us, a mere 10,000 hours of dedicated practice in your particular field is sufficient to bring out the best in you. No! That's not at all what Gladwell was saying. They even quote him: > “The idea that excellence at performing a complex task requires a critical minimum level of practice surfaces again and again in studies of expertise,” writes Gladwell in Outliers. Necessary, not sufficient.