The fact that a company values your output casts a hierarchy ordering individuals by the quality, quantity and character of their output. All else being equal, people who put in more time to learn will be more effective (and therefore valuable) than those who don't. It's not a "toxic" fact, it's just a fact.
Bob's advice is merely an estimate for what it takes to gain upward momentum in the hierarchy. It seems from your argument (correct me if I'm wrong) that you find Bob's ideas "misguided" because your analysis is rooted in the notion that the number of people actively trying to climb the hierarchy somehow diminishes its existence. The hierarchy exists whether you participate actively or not---because it's induced by the free market.
And sure, there's no 6-month bootcamp to become a doctor. But there are no doctors working on non-critical projects. If you were hiring a team to craft software for a life-critical medical device, you wouldn't hire someone out of a 6-month programming bootcamp either.
There's certainly evidence in the psychometric literature showing conscientiousness is a strong predictor of professional success. The explanation for that is precisely the one I give above. You can therefore argue that the number of hours in Bob's estimate of how much time should be spent learning is too high, but you can't argue that it's misguided.
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
We strive for transparency and don't collect excess data.