Michael Kruse wrote about Dan McLaughlin's attempt to put in 10K hours of practice at golf to become world-class.
Steve Sailer mocked the attempt, and mastery theory in general.
However, neither Kruse nor Sailer is even addressing the right question.
Mastery theory says roughly that practice dominates ability, given meaningful differences on both. When 2 different golfers have 10K hours of practice, but one is DJ Qualls and the other is Magic Johnson...it's pretty clear who wins.
The question we should be asking is whether Dan McLaughlin's 10K hours will make him a better golfer than an average ex-NFL quarterback with insane strength and coordination, and <1000 hours of effective practice. I think this is a relatively obvious slam-dunk for the 10K hours guy.
One more time...Aretae theory of learning:
First filter is motivation you do it more if you like it...not if you don't. Even Amy Chua was unable to convince her youngest to continue with the violin. Confound: If you're good to start, you like it more.
Second filter is practice...folks who practice the most get better. Folks who practice less don't. Folks who stop practicing start getting worse.
If everyone has similar amounts of enjoyment, and everyone has similar amounts of practice...then we can talk about ability as being the third filter...but it's only very useful as a determinant after you've seriously filtered on motivation and practice.
I'll wager some of my meager salary publicly that at the end of his 10,000 hours (provided he finishes), that Dan M. will be able to beat any other player someone wants to pick (at 72 holes), with the qualifier that the other player must have logged less than 1000 hours of golf at the time of the contest regardless their physical abilities.