Psychologists aren’t always right, but research studies are usually detailed and measured such that they could be reproduced, and they involve groups of participants to avoid a few exemplary participants skewing the results, and they compare groups against each other and themselves to find statistically significant results, and they explain what they found such as giving a reason for why they found that practicing for more than 4 hours a day isn’t recommended.
On the other hand you have a few exemplary musicians saying they practiced 8 hours a day. Even ignoring that they may be exemplary and thus what they do may not translate to the average person, did they actually practice 8 hours a day? Or did they just think that they did? Or are they just saying they did because it sounds good and other musicians seem to be doing the same? We don’t know because there wasn’t a researcher there to record how long they practiced.
And did they actually benefit from the 8 hours of practice, if that is in fact how long they practiced? Did they compare their practice results at 8 hours with practicing for 2, 4, or 6 hours? Could they have made the same amount of progress with only 4 hours of practice? Could they have made more?
You can choose who you want to believe. I choose to believe the researchers who measured, compared, and analyzed data to find result-based recommendations that work for a wide range of people. It’s not the only way, certainly, but it seems more likely to work better for the average person.
Besides, the whole thing is moot unless you have 8 hours a day to practice. I don’t even have 4.