It was in chapter two of Malcolm Gladwell's best-selling book, Outliers: The Story of Success, that the “10,000 hour rule" became a house hold theory. Based on research conducted by psychologist Anders Ericsson, the "10,000 hour rule" states that everyone has the ability to reach expertise level of proficiency by practicing a skill or task for 10,000 hours.
In the BBC article "Why Gladwell’s 10,000-hour rule is wrong", David Bradley analyzes the 10,00 hour rule. After doing some calculations, he comes to realize that in order to obtain 10,000 hours of practice, one would have to dedicate a minimum of approximately 90 minutes of practice every day for 20 consecutive years. Yet the 10,000 hour rule unfortunately fails to acknowledge that "different individuals reach their own peak of proficiency" at different times regardless of the skill.
(http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121114-gladwells-10000-hour-rule-myth)
In the article by Temple Grandin and Richard Panek, “Your Genes Don’t Fit: Why 10,000 Hours of Practice Won’t Make You an Expert”, the idea that “10,000 hours of work = success” is challenged. They believe that by putting such an emphasis on practice, the popular interpretation of the 10,000-hour rule raises hopes to an unrealistic level. Their idea is that all of the hard work in the world will not make up for a brain-based deficit, such as autism. Neuroanatomy isn’t destiny, and neither is genetics. They "don’t define who you will be, but they do define who you might be, and who you can be."
(http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/05/so-you-know-that-10000-hours-makes-an-expert-rule-bunk/4)
In the BBC article "Why Gladwell’s 10,000-hour rule is wrong", David Bradley analyzes the 10,00 hour rule. After doing some calculations, he comes to realize that in order to obtain 10,000 hours of practice, one would have to dedicate a minimum of approximately 90 minutes of practice every day for 20 consecutive years. Yet the 10,000 hour rule unfortunately fails to acknowledge that "different individuals reach their own peak of proficiency" at different times regardless of the skill.
(http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121114-gladwells-10000-hour-rule-myth)
In the article by Temple Grandin and Richard Panek, “Your Genes Don’t Fit: Why 10,000 Hours of Practice Won’t Make You an Expert”, the idea that “10,000 hours of work = success” is challenged. They believe that by putting such an emphasis on practice, the popular interpretation of the 10,000-hour rule raises hopes to an unrealistic level. Their idea is that all of the hard work in the world will not make up for a brain-based deficit, such as autism. Neuroanatomy isn’t destiny, and neither is genetics. They "don’t define who you will be, but they do define who you might be, and who you can be."
(http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/05/so-you-know-that-10000-hours-makes-an-expert-rule-bunk/4)