> If you tell someone that, despite their initial lack of talent, they can be "superb" at anything they want, and 10,000 hours later they are still mediocre at best, don't you think it would be frustrating to have wasted that much time?
Who are these mediocre people who have put in 10k hours of deliberate practice? I can't recall anyone I'd call mediocre who's put in more than a thousand hours at something.
My observation as a musician is that most musicians plateau at a certain point, based on their inherent talents, and their gains after that point are much more marginal.
Many people do continue to study in earnest (and invest a lot of time into "deliberate practice") after hitting this plateau, in an effort to make bigger gains. Though many will instead choose to make music a more recreational part of their life, and move onto other things as their life's primary focus.
But I think it's severe confirmation bias to say "everyone who is good put in 10k hours, and few people make it to 10k hours without being really good." Because the only counterexample to that is someone who continues practicing intensely for 10k hours without seeing noticeable gains. And why would someone do that (unless they are chasing the siren of the 10k hour rule)?
Who are these mediocre people who have put in 10k hours of deliberate practice? I can't recall anyone I'd call mediocre who's put in more than a thousand hours at something.