HN Reader

Tiger woods. I can't think of any tennis player who has been in the top 100 for the past few decades who didn't commit to it totally as a young child. Start tennis at 10? Too old. Swimmers. Has anyone stumbled into sporting greatness from being outside the top 5%? Or 1% when they hit adulthood?

So what is being said? A huge amount of elite success is in the hardware, i.e. the body &/or brain. These go through rather large changes between ages 10 an 18. Puberty. This shakes up the ordering among those who showed enough promise to have already committed to becoming elite.

What am I missing here? Seems like this research is nothing more than "Kids change through puberty, the nature and sizes of the changes are a bit of a lottery for each kid." Much like the the genetic factors are also a lottery so you can't reliably predict who is going to be great from the results of their parents. (But if your parents are both 5ft, the NBA seems an unlikely destination for you).

As someone who was not a child prodigy, but still closer to one than to normies, I can say that achieving results easily in childhood leads to not developing good discipline and persistence that are crucial in the adult world.

There are more factors that are not easily accessible for both ends of the spectrum, like access to good, personalized education, amount of trauma, and proper psychological support. But the 'discipline' part is what affected me most.

On the other side, maybe those who are more disciplined become real prodigies, and burn brightly because of the lack of social knowledge on how to support them and help to become highly developed adults.

> Around 90% of superstar adults had not been superstars as children, while only 10% of top-level kids had gone on to become exceptional adults (see chart 1). It is not just that exceptional performance in childhood did not predict exceptional performance as an adult. The two were actually negatively correlated, says Dr Güllich.

Even if "only" 10% of elite kids go on to become elite adults, 10% is orders of magnitude larger than the base percentage of adults who are elite athletes, musicians, etc. This doesn't sound "uncorrelated" to me so much as "not as strongly correlated as one might expect."

And describing something that happens 10% of the time as "rare" sounds a bit weird, like referring to left-handedness (also about 1 in 10) as rare.

I admit I haven't read the full study, but I'm extremely skeptical that the takeaway as given in the article is valid.

Take violinists, for example. Essentially every single world renowned soloist was "some sort" of child prodigy. Now, I've heard some soloists argue that they were not, in fact, child prodigies. For example, may favorite violinist, Hilary Hahn, has said this. She still debuted with the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra when she was 12, and here she is performing as a soloist at 15: https://youtu.be/upkP46nvqVI. Nathan Milstein, one of the greatest violinists of all time, said he was "not very good until his teens" - he still started playing at the age of 5, and at the age of 11 Leopold Auer, a great violin teacher, invited him to become one of his students, so he clearly saw his potential.

I have no doubt lots of prodigies burn out. But, at least in the world of violins, essentially every great soloist was playing at an extremely high level by the time they were in middle school.

This article is taking some liberties with the word "prodigy" that I disagree with.

If the way you nurture a talented student is via "intense drilling", I would argue that the student is not a prodigy in the traditional sense, but a talented and determined student who may or may not be dealing with parental pressure.

The actual prodigies I've known absorb information and gain skills without significant effort - I knew someone who enrolled in a calculus class, skimmed through the book in a week or so, and then would only show up to class for tests (which they would ace).

So the article conclusion doesn't surprise me - inflict relentless training on a young talented person and yeah maybe they won't want to do that as an adult.

But as far as actual "prodigies"? There is no burn-out because there is no (or minimal) effort. The choice of whether to stick with an area of interest through adulthood is more of a personal preference than anything ingrained.

In the past 50 years, not a single chess world champion started playing chess after the age of 10.

I suspect the article is playing some games with statistics, and in any case I hope people don't come away from this article with the idea that "you can become a chess world champion even if you never touched chess as a child!"

Regardless of the basic conceptual point being made (merits of tiger parenting vs. holistic "participation trophy" style parenting), this research doesn't look that convincing.

There's the graphic: "Top 1% cognition aged 12 and top 5% salary mid-30s" which is supposed to be the most dramatic one. So apparently we suddenly just take at face value the criticism "if you're so smart, why aren't you rich"?

I'm not quite a "child prodigy", but I did skip two grades in math in school. It made me feel very special when it was a kid but as a thirty-something software person I don't think I'm smarter than most of my coworkers now.

I think I was better than most kids at math, particularly algebra, but those kids grew up and caught up and I suspect many of them are as good or better at math than I am. I know nothing about child psychology or anything adjacent, but I honestly think a lot of "advanced child" stuff is just maturity.

I think the reality is, if you're too smart than you're going to be easily disinterested in the things that you've been trained for during your entire childhood. Because, you're going to be bored of it eventually!

I remember an interview from current #1 chess grandmaster Magnus Carsen about why John Nunn never became World Champion because he is too intelligent:

> SPIEGEL: Mr Carlsen, what is your IQ?

> Carlsen: I have no idea. I wouldn’t want to know it anyway. It might turn out to be a nasty surprise.

> SPIEGEL: Why? You are 19 years old and ranked the number one chess player in the world. You must be incredibly clever.

> Carlsen: And that’s precisely what would be terrible. Of course it is important for a chess player to be able to concentrate well, but being too intelligent can also be a burden. It can get in your way. I am convinced that the reason the Englishman John Nunn never became world champion is that he is too intelligent for that.

> SPIEGEL: How that?

> Carlsen: At the age of 15, Nunn started studying mathematics in Oxford; he was the youngest student in the last 500 years, and at 23 he did a PhD in algebraic topology. He has so incredibly much in his head. Simply too much. His enormous powers of understanding and his constant thirst for knowledge distracted him from chess.

> SPIEGEL: Things are different in your case?

> Carlsen: Right. I am a totally normal guy. My father is considerably more intelligent than I am.

As I see it, reaching meaningful progress is a very complex, uncertain and non-deterministic process of which being a high capacity individual is only one of the inputs.

A very intelligent individual can spend decades working on a product doomed to fail. Many bright mathematician might be working right now on a proof of a problem that in the future may be shown to be undecidable. Einstein, according to himself, was almost never the brightest mathematician in the room and yet gave the world a super-extraordinary contribution.

In my opinion, the humbling lesson that child prodigies give us is that we should value as much as possible all the humans involved in the often ungrateful task of trying to advance science. Unfortunately this doesn't seem to be the case and society seems obsessed with trying to discard and disqualify the human factor.

Previously discussed (and criticized) at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46722853

I always think of the Little League World Series when I read about stuff like this; these kids are often peaking early and so rarely make it to the highest levels as an adult. This is either because they quit advancing at the same rate or they've destroyed their bodies before they get to high school.

I think there's been like a handful LLWS winners who have done anything in the MLB and even fewer who have reached the top of pros.

Natural ability (physical or mental) is not strongly correlated with the personality traits that enable a person to "perform", "succeed", or "achieve" in society the way it is structured. In fact, they may be inversely correlated (consider how often people in leadership positions are not apparently exceptional).

I’ll do you one better - elite performers rarely become child prodigies

Isn't this just Berkson's paradox? If you filter for either exceptional childhood or exceptional adulthood they will appear negatively correlated.

For the super-prodigy category, someone like Mozart or Chopin, who could compose symphonies or polonaises at the age of 8, it's almost certain to maintain their elite status in adulthood (as opposed to someone who just plays the piano well or skipped a class or two in elementary school).

"Child prodigies are more likely to become elite performers" is an equally accurate and less misleading title.

Fantastic book called Range that talks about this phenomenon. Surprisingly, the child prodigy to adult superstar pipeline is less common than the generalist to adult superstar pipeline.

Tiger Woods is the classic example of a child prodigy, but it turns out his path is unusual for superstars. Roger Federer’s (who played a wide range of sports growing up until he specialized in tennis as a teen) is more common.

https://magazine.columbia.edu/article/review-range

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/41795733

Prodigy, even just above normal, children don't own the experience to handle their powers, besides the low motivation that is mentioned. They rarely form a valid, concrete plan to success and let themselves progress only in small steps. They make a few career mistakes early that kill their end result. And some non productive activity will absorb their powers and time (usually a low level job or some form of screen addiction)

OTOH, https://www.newscientist.com/article/2509261-high-achieving-...

10% seems like an incredibly high rate when it comes to becoming elite at something.

I saw an interview with an all-time great NBA basketball player. He was a top high school player and described his childhood like this: When you were at the movies, I was practicing. When you were on dates or hanging out with your buddies, I was practicing. When my family went on a cruise, I was dribbling up and down the hallways. ...

Now imagine the prodigy athlete who goes the movies, hangs out, and relaxes on the cruise. How could they hope to compete?

I recently read an interview Jadeveon Clowney, who was the country's top high school American football player and then the number one pick in the NFL draft. He was widely called a 'freak' athlete. Clowney said he didn't really learn how to understand and play the game until the NFL; until then he could dominate with his physical ability, even playing against elite college players.

He's played 11 years so far in the NFL, which is a long career in an extremely competitive job. We can call him truly 'good'; he was chosen for the Pro Bowl three times, in those years making him > ~85th percentile for his position, but nobody thinks he's an all-time great.

There's not such a clear story about where these people come from. Maybe the basketball player just wasn't as athletic (relative to the population of elite athletes) as Clowney and had to make up for it. Maybe Clowney would have been an all-time great with more work. Maybe there are many other inputs besides work and talent.

That has very simple answer - they are not used on persistent work since childhood, everything comes easy when they are young and smarter than everyone else. When things will start getting harder, lack of discipline and lack of coping mechanism for ventilation of mental stress will catch up with them.

What is the ratio of child prodigies to elite performers?

This is a tautology. Child prodigies that are identified often become academics who are railroaded into uselsss irrelevance.

Actual child prodigies like tiger woods or Justin Bieber who were genuinely insanely brilliant at a young age at non academic things went on to be wildly successful.

Flagging as article is paywalled with no way around, and there doesn't seem to be any way around the paywall now that archive.is is a DDoSer.

Maybe this can be explained by drift in what it means to be a "superstar" at different stages in life. In the beginning it's maybe mostly about the skill, later things get more complicated (media, money, negotiations etc) and what made the prodigy becomes relatively less important.

Isn't it just plainly that the "top" doesn't have enough space, even if every single one of them would be exceptional ?

Is this just a failure in our school system?

I mean it makes sense. Keep in mind that:

1. There's a lot of competition in many elite fields, and a decent percentage in both groups aren't going to make it anyway.

2. Being good at something as a child doesn't mean that's your passion or the thing you want to devote your life to. Plenty of these prodigies may want to get into different fields they're not naturally gifted at instead.

3. Being really good at something as a kid can make it hard to learn the discipline needed to stay on top when things get tougher. I'm not a prodigy, but many of the things I did well at in school/college are things I did worse than expected at in unversity, since I wasn't motivated/disciplined enough to get everything done on time.

4. Some fields require physical capabilities that a child prodigy may not grow up to have, like certain sports.

There are a lot of off ramps to comfort on the road to greatness. The hypothetical man who is genetically sufficient for the job (a short man will not succeed in many sports nor will a man with a bad voice be a good singer, a creative mind will not excel at the analytical and an analytical mind will not succeed at the creative), and mentally "just gets" the volumes of understanding it takes to be a once in a generation performer of some craft by mid teens or so will in starting down that path will necessarily achieve the intelligence to determine that there are other, orders of magnitude more sure paths to a comfortable life.

Being smart is not good enough. Being motivated and willing to work at it makes the difference.

I once knew a fellow who was exceptionally smart. He tried all kinds of schemes to make a go of his life, but when the going got tough he'd always quit.

Why child prodigies rarely become elite performers

I understand this is typical HN auto-edit.

Ted Kaczynki was a child prodigy.

The article is a paradigmatic example of innumeracy.

10% of prodigies becomes 10% of elite, whereas (whoknows)% of (general_population - prodigies) becomes 90% of elite.

How big is elite? How big is prodigies?

Well, for a start, I guess we can assume that size of elite == size of prodigies, because 10% == 10%.

But what is that size compared to general population?

If it's 1%, then 99% of muggles compete for slots in 0.9% of the population, so, hey, a prodigy is 11 times more likely to become an elite than a muggle.

If it's 0.1%, then a prodigy is 111 times more likely to become an elite than a muggle.

If it's 10% -- well, that's kind of stretching the definition of both prodigy and elite, isn't it?

tl;dr -- article is crap; research probably is, as well.

Because most societies and cultures are optimized to snuff that out.

That’s exactly what Vladimir Feltsman said about me when I was like 8 LOL. He is on video here saying it… “I want him to start playing concerts 3-4 years later but be in business 40 years longer!”

https://youtu.be/lf2DWzQ-5zk

Spoiler: I got into computers as a teenager and my piano career took a nosedive, from Carnegie Hall and Juilliard to like… playing for friends at a house party :)