Since you mentioned both deliberate practice and 10,000 hours: are you familiar with Anders Ericsson's criticism of the 10,000 hours idea? Do you think it's still a concept worth talking about?
I liked Gladwell's response, that 10,000 hours was never intended as the goal it turned into. Rather, it was intended as an order of magnitude. More than that however, it was intended to call attention to the support structure being expert requires. I.E. nobody can get 10,000 hours in on their own.
This. I'm listening to Outliers right now (where he builds up that concept). I can understand how people think Gladwell is a load of crap... if you focus on his points out of context. It was never "get 10,000 hrs and you'll be an expert", but instead "once you get to a certain level of talent/innate ability, it's deliberate practice that makes the difference."
Academia has put its nose up far in the air, it's become a career-crime to write anything for the public, so it falls to journalists to explain scientific results. Gladwell did a good job, then got manure tossed at him from scientists for daring to speak their results; and laypeople who flatly misunderstood what he said, or never read the articles/books and imagined what he said.
But the root problem is inequality - science has begun to see itself as an immaculate priesthood that mustn't mix with the plebs. Scientists should have been presenting their results to the public, but snobbishness now prevents this.