I'm not sure if I can explain what I meant, but I'll give it a go.
There are two main parts to learning to fly and being a pilot. One is learning to handle the controls, learning to navigate, learning to use the radio. It's what is tested in the Skills Test. It's what takes some people 45 hours to master, and some a couple of hundred, and of course everyone who passes it is of a similar and good enough standard.
The second part is more nebulous. It comes from experience - of being in the air, of things going wrong, of different instructors, of different weather conditions. It's experience of feeling you can't cope, of struggling, of dealing with your own limitations and those of others. It's acceptance and tolerance, of people and situations. It's what you'll be learning about as a pilot for many years and thousands of hours. You'll never stop learning about it, but the more you fly, the more you'll realise how important it is. It's why flying changes you as a person, in ways that have nothing to do with handling the controls of an aircraft.
This second part obviously can't be tested or quantified. And I'm not saying that those who took 60 hours to get a PPL will necessarily have more experience of it than those who took 40. But it's likely, simply because they've had one and a half times the flying...which is a lot when you have so few hours anyway.
I took me 90 hours to get my PPL(A). At the time I thought I was the worst pilot with the least aptitude in the history of aviation. I more or less said as much to an airline pilot, who assured me I was probably better than the people who did it in 45 hours, due to the extra experience I'd had, particularly with instructors. At the time I thought he was just trying to be nice. Now I know what he meant. But he couldn't explain it, and I'm not sure I've managed very well.
But to repeat what I said, I in no way mean to criticise or belittle anyone, but just be careful out there.