While I mostly agree with you there are plenty of times where it's worth it to be in the top 10% (or upper quadrant) but not the top 1%. These are things that are important to be good at but not worth the time to be excellent at. To say it's a waste of time to be in the top 10% is nonsense.

Take driving for example. When I started driving I enrolled in a driving course for several months. Now it's debatable that this course put me in the top 10% but it probably helped to put me above average. I have no ambition to be a race-car or stunt car driver so this is a great trade-off. I believe I'm a safer driver because of it.

Negotiating would be another example. It would make a lot of sense for a lot of people to take a negotiating course or read and practice it for a few months to get good at it in order to be able to negotiate their salary. The payoff of just a few months work could result in tens of thousands of dollars over your whole career. It wouldn't really be beneficial to spend 5-10 years getting your negotiating skills to the top 1% unless you wanted to actually do that for work.

Also the 10,000 hours really depends on if you are actually progressing or not. I think it's pretty debatable whether merely 10,000 hours of driving would put you in the top 1%. It's like the old joke that some people with 20 years of experience actually have one year of experience repeated 20 times.

Yes, you can't be great at everything but I think it's more valuable to great at one thing and good at a lot of things rather than just great at one or two things and mediocre at everything else.

Basically my point is, strive to be in the top 1% for what you want to earn money at or do with your life and then be in the top 10% for other things that either help you with that or benefit you in some way.