Yah but that didn't rhyme . In all seriousness, I think I wrote a similar post pages ago on this thread. My little rhyme was a bit unfair, but when I thought of a combo of words to go with Ericsson, I just had to flush it out.
In what might be my final words on the whole thing (assuming the project is not resurrected!):
Kinda like @mchepp, I find the whole thing vague about what he was asserting. That's much my fault, but partly his inability to communicate clearly. I doubt it was: "if you dedicate 10,000 hours, then you can be in the top of your field without any prior natural talent." That would certainly be preposterous.
But he strikes me as basically a decent person and an academic type who can't organize a desk. I'm sure the media garbled the meaning of his work in various ways, because we wanted to turn it into a feel-good inspirational thing. Ericsson didn't help his cause by not being particularly clear in his media appearances (my opinion, of course).
That's why the line about him being erudite. He seems so academic and unable to explain himself in the real world.
Great storyteller who took the general gist of Ericsson (and never even spoke to him, as we later learned) and weaved some great tales around it in Outliers. Beatles and Bill Gates come to mind, off the top of my head. They spent 10,000 hours on stuff (Hamburg bars and computer geek stuff) and THEN when the universe aligned and their skills suddenly were in demand, they were positioned to succeed. I thought that was a clever thesis, and he was a great writer. It was the stuff of cocktail parties for quite a while.
But that's how I remember the thesis years later anyway, and the part about the world suddenly finding the skills to be in demand wouldn't have applied to Dan today with golf. We have enough golfers. But the world was looking for rock n roll (Beatles) and it was looking for computer expertise (Gates), so the 10,000 hours were part of their success since they were well-positioned.
As the years have gone by since Outliers, Gladwell has generated quite of bit of criticism for his pomposity (easily searchable), so that was a fun line to stick in there. While I'm generally skeptical of a lot of Gladwell's theses, he is very thought-provoking which I enjoy (I do think he nailed the criticism of social media encouraging a lazy sort of activism-- but that's OT).
What I think is "dead" is the idea that you can take the two people's writings above, and then turn that into your own little inspirational project to reinvent your life. So, yes, it's too harsh to say that the "10,000 Hour Theory" is dead (since I admitted I don't even know what precisely Ericsson meant).
But I do hope the cottage industry of reinventing your life because of the academic paper on 10,000 hours has run its course.
Reinvent your life, absolutely! Take risks. Be bold and passionate. Sure, go for it. But don't pretend you are a scientific experiment. That's the part, I think, should die a quick death.
So while I agree with what you write in your post above, @Pretzel, there's my defense of the limerick.
Hello I have few questions? During tournament play with 13 year olds there is a dad who races cart to kids ball that looks fishy as hell very questionable. I'd hate to accuse but looks bad. Also if you get relief from roots of tree should player just approach his ball make free relief drop and play it? Without telling anyone? Or should they let someone know so they are sure what the players doing? Ready to make a scene over couple issues. My son counts every stroke no matter what and seeing disrespectful and dishonest play has really got me going.