Why is that the conclusion? As much as I am skeptical of meta-analyses and the scientific soundness of most psychological research, the paper really does suggest that dedication has relatively little to do with performance. Patience and dedication toward something one isn't talented in may well not pay.
Anecdotally, when I was an undergrad, I also figure skated very diligently, far more so than studying, and spent thousands of hours diligently and efficiently practicing with excellent coaches, which was probably significantly more time than I spent studying. I graduated with accolades and admission to an excellent university for my graduate work, while unable to reliably do even a single axel.
Dedication and patience may not be enough, it doesn't mean it's not required... I think "dedication and patience" is not enough if you don't account for some efficiency.
I think it could be either "don't expect fantastic results before 10000h" or "see if you're ready to engage a 10000h challenge to know if you can do it" or "commit to 10000h or choose something else"...
I'm not sure this rule was meant to be the n-th principle of thermodynamics, ie. checking its scientific validity may be a good way to waste 10000 hours.
Anecdotally, when I was an undergrad, I also figure skated very diligently, far more so than studying, and spent thousands of hours diligently and efficiently practicing with excellent coaches, which was probably significantly more time than I spent studying. I graduated with accolades and admission to an excellent university for my graduate work, while unable to reliably do even a single axel.